9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Modvat credit which has been held to have been taken wrongly. He has pleaded that the appellants had taken the Modvat credit wrongly in terms of the rules during the period October 95 to January 96 and had reversed the entire credit so wrongly taken on the capital goods during 1995-96. He has pleaded that the appellants had placed all their records before the learned lower authority to show that they had not utilised, any portion of the Modvat credit which had been taken wrongly and he has in his order also entered the finding as under : There is no allegation in the show cause notice about wrong utilisation of the credit taken . He has pleaded that this finding would clearly show that the appellants had no mala fides in regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmination of the consequent tax liability, the relevant law is the law which rules during the assessment year in respect of which the total income is assessed and the tax liability determined. The rate of tax is determined by the relevant Finance Act. In the case of a penalty, however, we must remember that a penalty is imposed on account of the commission of a wrongful act, and plainly it is the law operating on the date on which the wrongful act is committed which determines the penalty. Where penalty is imposed for concealment of particulars of income, it is the law ruling on the date when the act of concealment takes place which is relevant. It is wholly immaterial that the income concealed was to be assessed in relation to an assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem, proceed to address ourselves to the issue of quantum of penalty that should be levied in the facts and circumstances. 7. We observe that the provisions of Rule 57U(5) came to be introduced with effect from 23-7-1996, while offence in the case was committed during the period October 95 to January 96, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Brij Mohan v. CIT referred to supra has clearly held that the penal provisions as would be applicable would be the ones which were in force at the relevant time. The statutory penalty equivalent to the Modvat credit wrongly taken, therefore, could not have been levied in the facts and circumstances of this case. But that is not to say that the appellants are not liable to penalty. We observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
