M\/s Daurala Sugar Works Versus Commissioner of Central GST & C.E., Meerut
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 1775 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 15-6-2018
APPEAL No. E\/70138\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71114\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
\nShri S.C. Kamra & Shri Kartikeya Narain, Advocates for Appellant
\nShri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Anil G. Shakkarwar
\nThe present appeal is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MRT\/CX\/000\/APPL-MRT\/199\/2017-18 dated 26\/10\/2017 passed by Commissioner, CGST (Appeals), Meerut.
\n2. The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal before this Tribunal are that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passe<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n learned Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected the refund on limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred present appeal before this Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Daurala Sugar Works Versus Commissioner of Central GST & C.E., MeerutCentral Excise2018 (7) TMI 1775 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 15-6-2018APPEAL No. E\/70138\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/71114\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri S.C. Kamra & Shri Kartikeya Narain, Advocates for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s Daurala Sugar Works Versus Commissioner of Central GST & C.E., Meerut”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12918","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12918","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12918"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12918\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12918"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12918"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12918"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Heard the learned Counsel for appellant who have submitted that they had submitted a written submission before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 12.09.2017 and they contended before learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para-9 of said written submission that for the subsequent period in similar circumstances they had deposited Rs. 1,83,560\/- by way of reversal of Cenvat credit during the period from March, 2014 to December, 2014 and similar show cause notice demanding Rs. 1,14,09,360\/- under said Rule 6 (3) was issued to them which was dropped by the Commissioner and subsequently, t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n