TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Income Tax Department and a consequent demand was raised under Section 156 ibid even though for the subsequent period, evidences the fact that the wrong claim made by the assessee during the previous year was wiped out thereby entitling the assessee to the benefit of availing CENVAT Credit of duty on the capital goods - credit allowed. Credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess on CVDCredit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess on CVD - contravention of Rule 3(1) of CCR - Held that:- Rule 3(1)(vii) specifically allows the manufacturer or producer of final products to avail Credit including Education Cess on excisable goods and the Secondary and Higher Education Cess on excisable goods and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original dated 30.09.2016 confirmed the recovery of Credit of ₹ 16,15,626/- after re-working the same, Credit of ₹ 39,405/- along with interests and penalties, as proposed. The first appellate authority having rejected the appeal of the assessee vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 214/2017 (CTA-I) dated 09.10.2017, the assessee has come in appeal before this forum. 3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. G. Natarajan appeared for the assessee/appellant and mainly contended that when the mistake as to the claiming of deduction was pointed out, the appellant had filed a revised income tax return for the assessment year 2013-14 i.e., for the next year wherein, its claim for deduction was withdrawn. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and the attempt of the appellant to file application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act failed up to the Supreme Court. 18. In simple terms the assessee started up with a claim for two benefits and ended up with losing both the benefits. Therefore, the question is as to whether at least after the appellant realised his mistake and had foregone one of the benefits the appellant should still be penalized? The answer to this question would be an emphatic no. It is true that only after detection by the Preventive Unit, the appellant attempted to withdraw one of the two benefits. But the mistake has been explained by the assessee on the ground that their registered office was located in New Delhi and their factory was loc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The captioned appeal, is, accordingly, allowed. Resultantly, pending miscellaneous petition shall stand closed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 7. The documents placed on record namely, the Demand Notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act after taking cognizance of the revised return for the assessment year 2013-14, would satisfy the legal requirements of law. Further, the fact that the revised return was acted upon by the Income Tax Department and a consequent demand was raised under Section 156 ibid even though for the subsequent period, evidences the fact that the wrong claim made by the assessee during the previous year was wiped out thereby entitling the assessee to the benefit of availing CENVAT Credit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
