Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 264 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (6) TMI 264 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty u/s 11AC - availment of cenvat credit on various capital goods during the establishment of the new unit - whether penalty can be imposed under the facts and circumstances of the case - Held that:- Appellant was setting up a new unit and in that context, they have availed the cenvat credit on many items and even though initially the demand was issued for an amount of ₹ 60,27,939/-, finally the Commissioner has confirmed only an amount of S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

limits. - Ingredients of Section 11AC are missing in the case and, therefore, penalty imposed is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/87796/14-Mum - Dated:- 11-3-2015 - P K Jain, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Shri H S Shirsat, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Nath, Assistant Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P K Jain: Brief facts of the case are that the appellants had availed cenvat credit on various capital goods during the establishment of the new unit and a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

initially disputed the said demand, however, during the course of the personal hearing, they did not press for dropping the amount confirmed. It is also seen that in the appeal filed before this Tribunal, the appellant has initially disputed the denial of cenvat credit of ₹ 8,13,887/- and imposition of equal penalty. 3. The case was heard, wherein the learned counsel was asked by the Tribunal that when they have not pressed for the said demand before the original authority, why are they pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as that it would be seen from the impugned order that they have not suppressed anything from the department and there was no wilful intention to evade the duty and under the circumstances, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. reported in 2009 (240) ELT 661 (SC) and in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in 2004 (171) ELT 159 (SC), no penalty should be imposed as the issue whether the appellants .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version