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

2015 (11) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (11) TMI 830 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 444 (Tri. - Chennai) - CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that:- Adjudicating authority in his order dropped the proceedings in respect of recovery of demand of reversal of cenvat credit. However, he demanded the interest. On perusal of the DC letter dt. 20.7.2001 addressed to the appellant, where the appellant applied for debonding on 30.3.2001, final debonding order was issued and appellant was allowed to operate as DTA unit with effect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

question of demand of interest and imposition of penalty does not arise and also find that there was no removal of capital goods till the same unit becomes the DTA unit. There was no physical removal or clearance of capital goods or excisable goods. I find that the adjudicating authority instead of taking the date as 31.3.2001 has taken the date of debonding as 14.8.2001 which is not correct. Hence I hold that appellants are not liable for any interest or penalty. Accordingly, the impugned is 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

opted for debonding of the same unit. Before debonding, the appellant has reversed the credit. The adjudicating authority in his order dropped the demand in his order dt. 12.1.2005 and ordered for recovery of interest of ₹ 11,97,139/- and also imposed a penalty of ₹ 1,20,000/-.On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal and upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 3.The learned advocate submits that they had two units one is registered as EOU and the other is reg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thority took the relevant date from 14.8.2001 and demanded the interest. He further submits that when there was no the demand, question of interest does not arise. The relevant date for the demand should be taken as 31.3.2001 as approved by the Development Commissioner. 4.On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterates the findings and submits that final debonding was given by the Asst. Commissioner only on 14.8.2001 and till such time unit has remained as an EOU. Therefore interest is payable. He relied p .....

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