M\/s. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 900 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 9-7-2018
Appeal No. E\/40356\/2018 – Final Order No. 41954\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nMs. S. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nBrief facts are that the appellants who are engaged in manufacture of MS billets and TMT bars were availing the facility of CENVAT credit on duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input services. On verification of records, it was noticed that they had availed wrong credit to the tun<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n n. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. – 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bay Forge Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry vide Final Order No.4 1766\/2018 dated 11.6.2018. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer CommissionerateCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 900 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 9-7-2018Appeal No. E\/40356\/2018 – Final Order No. 41954\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Ms. S. Yogalakshmi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R. Subramaniam, AC (AR) … Continue reading “M\/s. Suryadev Alloys and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai Outer Commissionerate”<\/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-13763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13763","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=13763"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13763\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Shri R. Subramaniam supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. It is brought out from the submission as well as from the records that the appellant had reversed the credit before utilization. Following the decisions relied by the ld. counsel, I am of the view that the demand of interest and the findings with regard to penalty cannot sustain. The impugned orde<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n