M\/s Tekno Valves Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata.
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 398 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 17-4-2018
Appeals No. E\/75592\/2018 – FO\/A\/76398\/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nShri Sourabh Bagaria, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
\nShri D. Halder, A.C. (AR) for the Respondent (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P. K. Choudhary :
\nThis is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In its earlier order, the Tribunal had remanded the matter for denovo adjudication.
\n2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of gas valves classifiable under chapter 84 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 19<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n respective transporters and that the appellant has all along stated the credit availed in its statutory returns and therefore, the department had knowledge of the credit being availed by the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n above.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Tekno Valves Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata.Central Excise2018 (8) TMI 398 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 17-4-2018Appeals No. E\/75592\/2018 – FO\/A\/76398\/2018Central ExciseSHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Sourabh Bagaria, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri D. Halder, A.C. (AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P. … Continue reading “M\/s Tekno Valves Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata.”<\/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-13115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13115","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=13115"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13115\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
\n5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
\n6. For proper appreciation of the facts, the relevant para of the Tribunal's earlier order is reproduced:-
\n“I find that it is not in dispute that requisite document was neither produced before lower adjudicating authority nor before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances they are required to be examined. In view of the above, the case is remanded to the lower adjudicating authority to decide <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. I find that this issue has been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commr. v. ABB Ltd. reported as 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.), where it has been held that the benefit of Circular No. 97\/8\/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 was valid till 01.04.2008. I note that the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M\/s Vesuvious India Ltd. reported as 2014 (34) S.T.R. 26 (Cal.) is in favour of the Revenue. However, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum v. M\/s Vasavadatta Cements Ltd. in Civil Appeal Nos. 11710\/2016 has put this issue to rest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of credit was<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n