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

2016 (6) TMI 607 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (6) TMI 607 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules - suppression of fact or fraud - whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand? - Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) has not remanded the matter. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the recovery of credit availed and used for civil construction and machinery support structures and directed the jurisdictional Divisional Officer to quantify the demand. In fact there is no order of rema .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

notice is issued on the basis of these ER-1 returns and furnishing of informations by the respondent. There is no case for revenue that any hidden information was received by inspection or search. So the conclusion of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the facts of the case do not pose a situated for imposing penalty, does not call for any interference. - E/22965/2014 - A/30303/2016 - Dated:- 31-3-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) Shri V.K.Shastri, AR for the Appellant Shri Rajaram. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

use notice dated 03-01-2012 was issued to the respondent alleging irregular availment of credit on MS angles, Plates, Channels, Beams, Joists etc., as inputs. The respondent defended the notice contending that the explanation-2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which restricts Cenvat credit on cement, angles, channels, CTD etc. used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making structures for support of capital goods was inserted in the said Rules only w.e. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

put service . Further that the respondent had declared the availment of Cenvat credit in their ER-1 returns and Cenvat credit statements failed. That the extended period is not invokable as there is no suppression of facts on the part of respondent and that therefore, the demand is time barred. 3. After due process of law, the original authority allowed credit of ₹ 7,05,513/- and disallowed credit of ₹ 31,39,759/- Equal amount of penalty of ₹ 31,39,759/- was imposed. The respon .....

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