9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are that the respondent(s) during the period 3-5-1994 to 4-10-1994 availed Modvat credit on capital goods and also claimed depreciation of income tax/revenue expenditure for the full value of the capital goods. The respondent s contention is that this was done under a bona fide mistake and though the credit was availed but the same remained unutilised till 9-2-1998 when the same was reversed by them. Show cause notice was issued on 17-8-1998 proposing confirmation of debit entry and also proposing imposition of penalty and confirmation of interest under the provisions of Rules 57U(6) and 57U(8).The same was confirmed by the original Adjudicating Authority but on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that as the said provisions were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory penalty and interest under the provisions of Section 11AB and 11AC of the Act would be applicable only when any contravention has been committed after the date of enactment of the said rules and would not apply to the period prior to the enactment, even though the show cause notice has been issued after the date of enactment of the said provisions. He submits that as Rules 57U(6) and 57U(8) are pari materia with the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC, the ratio of the said decision would apply to the instant case also. In support he refers to the following decisions of the Tribunal : (i) Century Plyboard (I) Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1999 (33) RLT 380. (ii) Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 675 (Tribunal) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 441. The ratios of the decisions relied upon by the Revenue are also to the same effect. 5. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides. I find that Revenue in their appeal memo is only relying upon the Board s Circular which according to them is binding on the revenue. As such the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have folllowed the same instead of following the Tribunal s judgment. As has been rightly contended by the learned Advocate for the respondents that this Circular issued by the Board is binding on the Department but the assessees are always at liberty to challenge the same and the Courts are not bound to follow the Board s Circular. I also find that in the recent judgment in the case of Pioneer Miyagi Chemicals Pvt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
