M\/s. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1653 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 7-8-2018
Appeal No. E\/247\/2012 – Final Order No. 42215\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
\nShri Santhana Gopalan, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S.
\nThe appellants are manufacturers of dry cell batteries and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services. They have corporate office located at Kolkata. Apart from their unit at Thiruvottiyur<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Show cause notice was issued proposing to disallow the CENVAT credit and for recovery of the same along with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ChennaiCentral Excise2018 (9) TMI 1653 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 7-8-2018Appeal No. E\/247\/2012 – Final Order No. 42215\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Santhana Gopalan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, … Continue reading “M\/s. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai”<\/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-14123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14123","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=14123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14123\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. On behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri Santhana Gopalan submitted that the main issue is whether the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit distributed by it to the units though the amounts so distributed was not proportionate to their turnover. That the said issue is decided in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dashion Ltd. – 2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.) and that the department vide its Circular No. 10632\/2018-CX<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n