9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - In terms of the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 394/2006-C.E. dated 17-8-2006, the appellant is required to pre-deposit the duty amount of Rs. 1,23,999/- and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- only. 2. The learned Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, stated that, the appellants received capital goods in the years 2003 and 2003-04. They availed 50% of the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be in possession of the capital goods at the time of taking credit. The learned Advocate drew our attention to the penultimate para of the impugned order, where the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that, the violation is basically a procedural. On that account, he had also reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. 3. On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that, as per Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received. The condition is that, in the financial year, in which they take credit, the capital goods should be in the possession and use of the manufacturer. It is not in dispute that, 2004-05, which is the year, in which the credit was taken, was subsequent to the year in which the goods were received. Moreover, in that financi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
