M\/s. Jaypee Bela Plant Versus Commissioner of GST, CC & CE, Jabalpur
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 906 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 766 (Tri. – Del.)
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 4-9-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50635 of 2018 – Final Order No. 52950\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellants : Shri Rahul Tangri, CA
\nFor the Respondent : Ms Tamana Alam, AR
\nORDER
\nPER: C L MAHAR:
\nAppellant herein are engaged in manufacture of clinker falling under Chapter 25 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Act. Period of dispute is from July, 2013 to October, 2013 when the appellants are observed to have availed Cenvat Credit on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by M\/s. SECL. The Department has denied the admissibility of said credit to the appellants in terms of Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 17.6.2015 was issued to the appellant for the r<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ra, has submitted that merely pendency of adjudication against M\/s. South Eastern Coal Fields before the Hon'ble Apex Court, cannot be made the criteria for the appeal to be allowed. It is impressed upon that as far as the present appeal is concerned, there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that the appellant had notice of M\/s. SECL to have been issued with a show cause notice for demand of differential duty on valuation. It is also impressed upon that as per Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, it was the duty of appellant only, to ascertain the absence of any misconduct or suppression of fact. The issuance of show cause notice to M\/s. SECL much prior the appellants availed the Cenvat Credit on supplementary invoices issued by M\/s. SECL is sufficient to hold that the appellant have failed to ascertain the same. As such, the Cenvat Credit cannot be made available to them in view of Rule 9 (1) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Impressing upon the present appeal to stand on different <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n by the Coal Companies which are the undertakings of the Government of India, there can be no presumption, unless rebutted, of any alleged suppression or collusion. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Jaypee Bela Plant Versus Commissioner of GST, CC & CE, JabalpurCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 906 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 766 (Tri. – Del.)CESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 4-9-2018Excise Appeal No. 50635 of 2018 – Final Order No. 52950\/2018Central ExciseMr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) … Continue reading “M\/s. Jaypee Bela Plant Versus Commissioner of GST, CC & CE, Jabalpur”<\/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-13767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13767","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=13767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. The observations from the Tribunal decision in the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. CGST, Jabalpur, Final Order No. 52486\/2018 dated 3.7.2018 and another in Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur Final Order No. 52611\/2018 dated 23.7.2018 are reproduced below:-
\n “7. Having considered the rival contentions of both the sides, we take notice that this Tribunal in connected matter of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in Appeal No.52023- 52026\/2014-DB dated 3.4.2017 vide Final Order No.52723- 52726\/2017 dated 3.4.2017, taking notice of pendency of similar matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and ors. and also other cases, referred to in the above case, disposed of the appeal of the South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., granting liberty to them to come again after having final verdict f<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n