Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

SMIIEL A UNIT OF MOTHERSON SUMI Versus C.C. & C.E. & S.T. -Noida

2016 (11) TMI 265 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Cenvat credit - capital goods - availing 100% credit on moulds and dies - Penalty - Held that: - under the facts and circumstances there is no mala fide and /or contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant in availing 100% Cenvat credit on moulds and dies during the period October, 2003 to May, 2004 - the appellant have calculated the interest element and paid the same on the excess credit so taken in for the first year under intimation to the Revenue, before the issue of show cause notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der the facts and circumstances, extended period of limitation, have been rightly invoked in the show cause notice. 3. The admitted facts are that vide a Circular dated 22/9/2003 CBEC allowed 100% Cenvat credit on moulds and dies in the year of acquisition. The said facility was modified vide a another Circular dated 13/10/2003 to the effect that moulds and dies will be entitled for Cenvat credit under normal scheme, that is 50% in the first year and balance 50% in the subsequent year. The appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tand that the said credit was taken as available in terms of Circular Number 747/63/2003 - CX dated 22/9/2003 issued by CBEC. It is further contended that the said Circular provided for full Cenvat credit in the year of acquisition itself. 4. Subsequently show cause notice dated 17/7/2006 was issued proposing a demand of ₹ 15,94,154.50 recoverable under Rule 12 of CCR read with section 11 A of the Central Excise Act. It was also alleged that the appellant did not disclose the facts to 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

staining the Levy of demand and interest for taking 50% balance credit on capital goods in the first year itself. Further the amount of ₹ 3,12,718/- was confirmed being demand of duty for over drawn amount along with interest. Penalty was reduced to ₹ 4,40,000/-. Being aggrieved the appellant - assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The ld. Counsel for the appellant urges that under the facts and circumstances, it is an admitted fact that the credit was taken in view of the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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