M\/s S.A.I.L. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, Ranchi
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 714 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 9-5-2018
Ex. Appeal No.75352\/18 – FO\/76542\/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nShri S. P. Majumdar, Adv. for the Appellant (s)
\nShri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P. K. Choudhary:
\nThis is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in- Appeal No.157\/RAN\/2017 dated 31.10.2017 passed by Commr. of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Ranchi.
\n2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant, M\/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL), Bokaro Steel Plant, is engaged in the manufacture of various articles of iro<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ds. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s S.A.I.L. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, RanchiCentral Excise2018 (12) TMI 714 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 9-5-2018Ex. Appeal No.75352\/18 – FO\/76542\/2018Central ExciseSHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri S. P. Majumdar, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary: … Continue reading “M\/s S.A.I.L. Versus Commr. of CGST, C. Excise, Ranchi”<\/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-15503","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15503","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=15503"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15503\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15503"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15503"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15503"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. I find that Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, prescribes that “if the capital goods are cleared as waste and scrap, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the duty leviable on the transaction value”. I also find from the record that the appellant all along stated that waste and scrap generated from the capital goods were brought into the factory much before 01.04.1994, when where was no provisions for availing credit on the capital goods. It is the case of the appellant that since there is no provision for availing credit on the capital goods, no Excise duty was required to be paid. I find that the Adjudicating Authority has also dropped the demand attributable to rejected machinery\/machinery spares\/equipments, which w<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n