9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in a case which was before the Apex Court as the same would amount to giving retrospective operation thereto which is impermissible in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Appeal No. 127 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2015 - Vijay Manohar Sahai, ACJ And R. P. Dholaria,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Paritosh Gupta for Mr Presh M Dave, Adv For the Respondent : Mr Gaurang H Bhatt, Adv JUDGMENT (Per : Honourable The Acting Chief Justice Mr. Vijay Manohar Sahai ) 1. We have heard Mr. Paritosh Gupta for Mr. Paresh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gaurang Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: Whether the Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction was also reflected in the appellant s statutory records. 6. It appears that a show cause notice dated 16.12.1999 came to be issued to the appellant proposing to deny the above modvat credit of ₹ 4,52,500/- with interest and penalty on the grounds that the appellant had taken loan from Surat People s Co-operative Bank for ₹ 39 lakhs for purchasing the said texturising machine; that the payment for the capital goods was made by the said Bank under Loan Agreement with the appellant; that the appellant had not produced a certificate from the financial company to the effect that duty specified on the capital goods had been paid by the manufacturer to the financial company prior to first installment of repayment of loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above amount of ₹ 1.00 Lakh and therefore, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for noncompliance of stay order passed under Section 35F of the Act vide order dated 8/17.9.2003. 11. In the meanwhile, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat also filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the above referred order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner [Appeals], Surat as regards the penalty contending that penalty was liable to be imposed on the appellant and the action of the Commissioner [Appeals] in setting aside the penalty was not legal and proper. The Appellate Tribunal passed an order dated 7.7.06 on this appeal holding that penalty of ₹ 45,250/- being 10% of the duty was justified in this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
