M\/s. Vibgyor Printing and Packing P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 78 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/40756\/2018 – Final Order No. 43022\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nMs. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of printed flexible packaging material. They filed refund claim of Rs. 6,85,366\/- being the accumulated \/ unutilized CENVAT credit as they had closed down their manufacturing activity and surrender<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d their central excise registration, they are eligible for the accumulated credit. She relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Union of India Vs. Slovak Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. – 2006 (201) ELT 559 (Kar.). That the appeal filed by the department against the said decision was dismissed as reported in 2008 (223) ELT A170 (SC). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Vibgyor Printing and Packing P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise PuducherryCentral Excise2019 (2) TMI 78 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 20-11-2018Appeal No. E\/40756\/2018 – Final Order No. 43022\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellant … Continue reading “M\/s. Vibgyor Printing and Packing P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Puducherry”<\/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-16485","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16485","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=16485"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16485\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16485"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16485"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16485"}],"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 L. Nandakumar supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The issue is with regard to the refund of unutilized credit as the appellant had stopped the manufacturing activity. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Slovak Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had occasion to analyze the very same issue and held that even though there<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n