Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Orient Processors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli

2016 (8) TMI 1016 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Recovery of interest and imposition of penalty - Rule 15 (2) of CCR 204 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - period from the date of availing of credit upto the date of filing of the revised return - simultaneous availment of depreciation under the Income Tax Act and credit under cenvat scheme during the Assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09 - filed revised return for the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 on 23.3.2011 on the ground of irregularity found - Hel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- FINAL ORDER No.40867/2016 - Dated:- 27-5-2016 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri M. Kannan, Advocate - For the Appellant Shri P. Anbuchelvan, Superintendent (AR) - For the Respondent ORDER The appellant herein have availed the credit of ₹ 1,24,302/- on capital goods on 1.9.2006, 1.12.2006 and 1.4.2007. They have also availed depreciation under the Income Tax Act during the Assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09. Subsequently, the audit team detected irregularity and the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt appeal. 2. Appellant is represented by Shri M. Kannan, Advocate and Revenue is represented by Shri P. Anbuchelvan, Superintendent (A.R). 3. Ld. counsel submits that since the income tax returns have been revised, they are therefore eligible to avail the credit and demanding of interest is not warranted. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following decisions :- (1) CCE & Cus. Surat-II Vs Nish Fibres 2010 (257) ELT 81 (Guj.) (2) CCE Belgaum Vs Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellants have revised their IT returns foregoing the benefit already availed by them during the financial year 2007-08. He reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that decision of the tribunal in the case of Yee Kay Technocrat (P) Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi - 2011 (267) ELT 92 (Tri.-Del.) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. The limitation has to be reckoned with reference to the obligation on the part of the assessee and date of detection by the department is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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