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 Sunder Ispat Ltd., Versus CCE, Hyderabad - IV

2016 (8) TMI 778 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Demand - recovery of credit availed - irregularly availed 100% CENVAT Credit in the same year on capital goods viz: Ingot moulds, Forged Rolls & Metal Rolls for the period 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 - Held that:- the appellant is eligible to avail 50% credit in the subsequent year. In such case, there is no revenue loss and the availment of 100% credit in the same year of purchase is only a procedural lapse. The appellant has already paid the interest and penalty which in my opinion would suffic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

29.10.2009. Taking into account the evidence and the fact that appellant has paid the interest and penalty, I am of the view that the demand/recovery of credit availed is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee - E/2628/2010 - Final Order No. A/30538/2016 - Dated:- 13-6-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member (Judicial) Sh. Mohd. Rahim, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. N. Vishwas, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Brief facts of the case are that respondents are manufac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd the balance has to be taken in subsequent year. A show cause notice was issued demanding irregularly availed excess credit along with interest and also for proposing penalty under section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004. After due process of law, the original authority dropped the demand of excess availment of credit. However, the demand of interest thereon was confirmed, besides imposing penalty of ₹ 2000/- under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and is contesting demand of credit availed only. He submitted that the appellant is eligible to avail the credit in the subsequent year and that therefore there is no revenue loss. At the most it would only be a procedural lapse. He pleaded that the appellant having paid interest and penalty, the demand for recovery of credit availed may be set aside. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs CCE, [2005 (187) ELT 241 (J-Del)]. 4. Against this the learned AR 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

 

 

 

 

 

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