9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be allowed, if the manufacturer claims depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and on that part of the capital goods which represents the amount of specific duty paid on such capital goods. It appeared to the Department that the appellant had availed modvat credit and depreciation simultaneously to the extent of Rs. 44,52,091/-. In an adjudication order dated 01.11.2001, the Commissioner interalia confirmed the demand of the said amount and also imposed equal penalty under Rule 57U of the Rules. Aggrieved, appellants had filed appeal before CESTAT, who vide a Final Order No. 810/2002 dated 23.07.2002, had remanded the matter for denovo adjudication, to address the grievance of the appellant that they were not given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y should not have been imposed. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR, R. Subramaniyam, AC, supported the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts on record. 5.1 This appeal pertains to a dispute which emanated way back in 1998 by way of issue of SCN dated 02.06.1998, in respect of years 94-95 to 96-97. In the first round of litigation before this forum, appellants contended that they had not been given sufficient opportunity to prove their case with relevant records. They had also been aggrieved that copy of the auditor s report which the department had relied upon was not provided to them. Only based on these grievances, the Cestat in their Final order dated 23.07.2002 remanded the matter back for suitable denovo proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is the onus was on them to produce such documents which they wanted to produce in their support. This is certainly not the case here. Nonetheless, the adjudicating authority has thoroughly analysed the matter with the available documents and proof that were before him. Therefore, on the issue of merit, we do not find any favour to the appellants and for which reason that part of the impugned order disallowing the credit availed by the appellants on capital goods to the tune of Rs. 44,52,091/- and demanding the same under Rule 57U (3) of the Rules, along with interest liability thereof does not call for any interference and therefore sustained. 5.5 However, coming to the matter of penalty, we find that the appellant had paid up the ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
