2007 (12) TMI 334

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er]. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby penalty of Rs. 25,600/- was imposed and demand of interest was made. 2. The appellant availed credit in respect of capital goods. The revenue made enquiry whether appellant is availing depreciation under the Income-tax Act under the capital goods. In response to the enquiry as the appellant was availing the benefit of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f penalty, due to mistake the appellant asked for depreciation under the Income-tax Act and when this fact came to the notice of appellant, they immediately reversed the credit, therefore, the allegation of fraud, wilful misstatement cannot be alleged against the appellant for imposition of penalty. 4. I find as per the provision of sub-rule (5) of Rule 57U, the manufacturer is liable to pay int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X