M\/s. Indian Additives Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1497 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 7-6-2018
Appeal No. E\/42301\/2017 – Final Order No. 41744\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nShri V.S. Manoj, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that appellants were issued Show Cause Notice, proposing to recover the wrongly availed credit to the tune of Rs. 09,52,385\/- for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. After due process of law, the original authority dropped the demand in respect of certain services and an amount of Rs. 1,76,586\/- along with interest was co<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n t there is no interest liability or penalties. He relied upon the decision in the case of Strategic Engineering Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 310 ELT 509 Madras, as well as the decision passed by the Tribunal in the case of Easun Rerolle Ltd. vide final order No. 42202\/2016 dated 04.11.2016. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Indian Additives Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai NorthCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 1497 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 7-6-2018Appeal No. E\/42301\/2017 – Final Order No. 41744\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri V.S. Manoj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER … Continue reading “M\/s. Indian Additives Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North”<\/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-13406","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13406","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=13406"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13406\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13406"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13406"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13406"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The learned AR, Shri R. Subramaniyan, supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. It is brought out from the records that the appellant has reversed a substantial portion of the irregularly availed credit to the tune of Rs. 1,70,290\/- along with interest before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. A small differential amount of Rs. 6,296\/- was also reversed by them after passing of the order in original. It is also brought out that<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n