9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri R. Subramanya, ld. Advocate and Shri S.K. Mall, ld. SDR, I find that the appellants availed Cenvat credit of duty on the capital goods to the extent of 100% in the year of receipt of said goods, instead of availing credit to the extent of 50% in the first year and balance 50% in the next financial year, in terms of Rule 4(2) of Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit was available in the next financial year. As such, the demand of duty cannot be confirmed on this account. 3. This brings me to the question of interest. The appellant having availed the entire 100% credit in the first year, whereas they were entitled to avail 50% credit, has resulted in excess availment of 50% of the credit. The said 50% credit was available to the appellant in the nex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .R., I find that the appellants were admittedly entitled to the Modvat credit of the entire duty paid on the capital goods. It is only the timing of taking credit which is the subject matter of dispute. Instead of availing the credit to the extent of 50%, the appellant availed the entire 100% at the time of receipt of the goods itself. As the said credit so availed was not even utilised by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods while they are permitted to avail only 50% credit. In all I find that the allegations on the respondents were falling short of the ingredients that are mentioned under Section 11AC for imposition of penalty. As such the findings reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) in this case are correct and does not warrant any interference." 7. In view of the declaration of law in the above refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
