Disposed

the commissionr of central excise-pune-ii v. m/s satish industres

Bombay HC11 Sept 2012CEXA/94/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise challenging a CESTAT order. The court discussed the allocation of Cenvat credit and sales tax credit but ultimately found no fault in the Tribunal's decision based on the record. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

the commissionr of central excise-pune-ii Vs m/s satish… — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

cexa94-07

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.94 OF 2007

¶5

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II. ] Commissionerate, Ice House, 'B' Wing, ] Wadie College, Sasson Road, ] Pune - 411 001 ] ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Satish industries, W-64, MIDC, ] Shiroli, Kolhapur. [ ..Respondent.

¶6

Mr. A.S. Rao for the appellant.

¶7

None for the respondent.

¶8

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATED : 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

¶10

This appeal was admitted on 5^th June, 2008 on the following two questions of law :-

¶11

a) Whether CESTAT is correct in law in allowing 100% Cenvat credit when as per the existing provisions of Cenvat Credit

1/3

sas

cexa94-07

Rules, only 50% credit is admissible in the current financial year ?

¶16

b) Whether it is correct to allow the credit of sales taxes In Cenvat account, when it is not at all admissible ?

¶17

According to the revenue, when in law the assessee was entitled to avail 50% of the credit of duty paid on capital goods in the initial financial year and avail the balance 50% credit in the next financial year and the assessee had wrongly taken 100% credit in the initial financial year, the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the availment of the entire credit in the initial financial year.

¶18

On perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as also CESTAT, it is seen that the said authorities have not upheld the action of the assessee in availing 100% of the credit in the initial year but have held that by the time the appeal was heard the initial financial year being over in addition to the 50% credit of the initial year, the assessee became entitled to the remaining 50% of the credit available in the following financial year and thus the assessee was entitled to 100% credit on the date of the appellate order. It is not the case of the revenue that the credit wrongly availed by the assessee has been utilized in the initial financial year. If the credit of the subsequent financial year wrongfully taken in the initial financial year if

2/3

sas

cexa94-07

not utilized till the commencement of the subsequent financial year, then no prejudice is caused to the revenue and the decision of the Tribunal deserves acceptance.

¶23

As regards the second question is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that the revenue has not adduced any evidence to establish that the assessee has wrongly taken credit of the sales tax paid by the assessee. Hence no fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal on the second question.

¶24

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶25

3/3

¶26

sas

the commissionr of central excise-pune-ii v. m/s satish industres

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

the commissionr of central excise-pune-ii v. m/s satish industres

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

commissioner of central excise service tax Vs glaxo flash courier Pvt. Ltd.

thcommissioner of central excise-thane-i Vs m/s amber procesors a division of m/s piiramal spinning and wvg. mills Ltd.

the commissioner of central excise,mum-v Vs m/s encee dyeing and printing works

The Commissioner of Central Excise , Mumbai v, Mumbai Vs M/S Cewat India Processors

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-v Vs M/S. Tata Ssl Ltd.

Nivaram C.Devasy Vs Union of India and Ors.