9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the CST Act. The assessing authority viewed that goods for Rs. 23,866.65 purchased by the appellant did not fall within the scope of the articles mentioned in the Registration Certificate issued to the appellants under CST Act and resultantly inflicted the penalty under dispute. The AAC decided that the goods involved fell within the scope of the articles mentioned in the Registration Certific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o derive the benefit conferred under CST Act. He consequently contended that there would be no further scope for the authorities to impose the penalty. It is presented that the appellant utilised the articles so purchased in the manufacture of goods, in the sale of which the appellant was actually engaged. The view of the Supreme Court in 16 STC p. 563 in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stores, spare parts, accessories, fuel or Lucricating materials in the manufacture. This rule specifically indicates that the machinery, plant equipment, tools, spare parts, accessories etc., could be construed as having been involved in the process of manufacture for the purpose of s. 8(3)(b). A Notification under s. 8(3)(b) issued by the Central Government was also brought to out notice. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty that they are capital goods in nature has therefore no relevance or force in view of the specific positions adequately bone out by the provisions of the Act and Rules.
5. We therefore, do not find any scope or basis to sustain the view of the first appellate authority. The appellant succeeds in his claim.
6. In result, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 1,288. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
