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

2016 (8) TMI 442 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (8) TMI 442 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Imposition of penalty on partner - wrong availment of Cenvat credit by partnership firm - steel scrap received by the partnership firm is not capable of being used for re-rolling purpose - partnership firm have without contesting the matter, reversed the entire Cenvat Credit and did not litigate the matter. - Held that:- it is found that the present appellant has shown his ignorance about the nature of the product. From the statement it is revealed 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

e of being used in the manufacture of the final product, it is also fact that the partnership firm of the appellant admittedly paid the entire amount of Cenvat Credit and have not contested. Therefore, the penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs imposed on the appellant is on higher side and be reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/1606/2010 - Order No. A/86327/16/SMB - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Ashok Kumar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vat credit on the ground that the steel scrap received by the partnership firm is not capable of being used for re-rolling purpose. The statement of the present appellant who is a partner of the partnership firm was recorded on dt.22.8.2008 wherein he confirmed receipt of the waste and scrap from the dealers located at pune and availed cenvat credit on receipt of the same in the factory. On the question put before him that which type of material was procured by them, he, in his exculpatory reply .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rawn. The appellant was imposed penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. Against the adjudication order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was rejected by the impugned order, therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant in his statement not admitted regarding the wrong availment of credit. As per his statement he has not able to recollect regarding the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (E.P.) Vs. Jupiter Exports 2007 (213) ELT 641 (Bom.) 4. On the other hand, Shri N. N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the present appellant was penalized for his own fault that he was aware about the nature of the goods, despite this fact, the credit was availed. Even though the penalty was imposed on the partnership .....

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