2016 (7) TMI 629

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The findings of Commissioner(Appeals) is that appellant ought to have ensured whether credit is admissible before availing credit. This does not amount to suppression. Further the show-cause notice relies upon ER-1 returns filed by appellant. This again established, that appellant disclosed necessary details in ER-1 returns. All these prove .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A show-cause notice dated 04/01/2013 was issued to appellant. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand (Rs.2,60,937/-) along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Commissioner(Appeals) vide order impugned herein upheld the order-in-original and dismissed the appeal. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in to 2008, though the credit was availed in 2009. That appellant has not suppressed any facts. That Commissioner(Appeals), Guntur in another case (M/s. Aruna Paper Board Mills) allowed credit on the same items. 5. The learned AR submitted that credit is not admissible on the subject items as they do not fall in the category of capital goods. That after 07/07/2009, the credit on cement and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X