Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s IOL Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Chandigarh-II

2015 (10) TMI 1138 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of CENVAT Credit along with interest - whether the appellant is liable to the interest on ₹ 1,58,775/- or ₹ 48,386/- during the intervening period. - Held that:- I have gone through the decision of Ind-swift Laboratories (supra) and decision of Strategic Engineering (supra) wherein the decision of Ind-swift Laboratories was considered and thereafter relying on the decision of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon ble High Court have con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. - Therefore, if the appellant is not contesting the merits of the case, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant in the light of M/s. Atul Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat [2012 (10) TMI 826 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]. Therefore, I hold that penalty on the appellant is not imposable. - Appeal disposed of. - Excise Appeal No. 60405 of 2013-EX(SM) - Final Order No. A/51629/2015-EX(SM) - Dated:- 28-4-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri T R Rastogi, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri D Sing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

transportation and auditing services received by them doing job work who is working under notification No. 214/1986 and clearing the goods to the principal manufacturer without payment of duty. The show cause notice was issued on 21/09/2011 to deny the Cenvat credit on the services availed by them. The show cause notice was adjudicated and Cenvat credit was denied along with interest, equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Same was adjudicated by the Commissioner and it was held that Cen .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gh Court in the case of CCE Madurai vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. [2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad)]. He further submits that although the appellant is not contesting the merits of the case but penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant as per the decision of M/s. Atul Ltd. vs. CCE, Surat [2012-TIOL-1384-CESTAT-AHM]. In these circumstances, he prayed that impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed by directing the appellant to pay interest on ₹ 48,386/- for the intervening period. 4. O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to the Revenue during the course of audit. Therefore, it is a case of suppression of facts by the appellant. In this case, penalty is imposable on the appellant. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. It is admitted fact that appellant has not challenged the admisibility of Cenvat credit to them and have reversed the Cenvat credit sought to be denied by the adjudication order before issuance of show cause notice. The only dispute before me is that whether the appellant is liable t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version