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 →

M/s. Lark Non-Ferrous Metals Ltd. Versus CCE, Jammu & Kashmir

2016 (11) TMI 351 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

Denial of credit taken on capital goods - imposition of penalty u/s 27 - Held that: - the appellant has availed the credit on the capital goods without receiving the same in the factory. Although the appellant was not going to gain any benefit by taking the credit on the capital goods which has not been received in the factory. There is procedural lapse on the part of the appellant. For this, the penalty under section 27 is imposable on the appellant - penalty of ₹ 5,000/- imposed on 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

II register. - Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/57578/2013 - Final Order No. 61157/2016 - Dated:- 22-8-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant: Shri S.K.Malhotra, Consultant Present for the Respondent: Shri Satyapal, AR ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a unit located in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and availing the benefit of Notification No.56/02-CE da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was issued to appellant to impose penalty on the credit taken on capital goods and to deny re-credit of ₹ 10,61,252/- as time barred, The show cause notice was adjudicated. Consequent to that, the penalty equivalent to credit taken on capital goods was imposed and re-credited of the amount of ₹ 10,61,252/- was denied as time barred. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. Learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the appellant was not going to get any b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t High Court in the case of Swastic Sanitarywares Ltd. -2012-TIOL-757-HC-AHM-CX. Therefore, he prayed that the provision of sec 11B are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. On the other hand, learned AR relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case BDH Industries Ltd.-2008 (229) ELT 364 (Tri) to say that the provisions of section 11B are applicable the facts of the present case, Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to take suo-moto credit of excess amount debited in their .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rdingly, the penalty of ₹ 5,000/- is imposed on the appellant. For suo-moto credit of excess amount debited in their RG-23A Part II register, I find that the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Swastic Sanitarywares Ltd. is applicable to the facts of this case wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has observed as under:- 15. In the present case, however, we find that the second deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods did not amount to deposit of .....

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