9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice has been issued on 6.2.2008 for the period June, 2005 to October, 2006 by invoking extended period of limitation is not correct as the respondents are regularly filing. R I Return showing clearance of inputs as such on assessable value. in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. (2000 (7) TMI 105 (Tri)) if the assessee himself has to bear the tax liability, there is a situation of revenue neutrality. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was confirmed along with interest and an equal amount of penalty was also imposed on the respondents. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation and revenue neutrality. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the submissions of the respondents and held that as the respondents are regularly filing R. I. Return showing clearance or i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fairly agreed that on merit, the respondents have not a case because they have to reverse the credit taken on such inputs which have been cleared by them as such not to stay on the assessable value, but the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an order in their favour on the ground of limitation and on revenue neutrality which the Revenue has not challenged. Therefore, the appeal be dismissed. 5. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v. CCE 2000 (119) ELT 0718 (Trib-LB) wherein the Tribunal has held that if the assessee himself has to bear the tax liability, there is a situation of revenue neutrality. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Moreover, the Revenue has also not chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
