9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hod) @ 25% as per the Income Tax Act. Show cause notice dt. 16.7.2003 was issued to the respondent demanding differential duty of Rs. 6,89,987/- and also demanded interest and penalty. Adjudicating authority in his order dt. 28.11.2003 confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. On appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order dt. 26.2.2004 set aside the order. Therefore, Revenue filed appeal before this Bench. This Tribunal in the Final Order No.60/2011 dt. 18.1.20111 has remanded the matter to the original authority with a direction to adopt a straight line depreciation method as prescribed in the Board's circular F.No.314/19/94-FTT, dt. 21.4.1998. Against the Tribun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions made by both sides and also the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras by order dt. 29.1.2014. The period involved in this case relates to July 2002 to October 2002 when the capital goods were removed to their sister unit. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the differential duty by following the Board's circular No.643/34/2002 dt. 1.7.2002 and adopted the value on the capital goods by following the depreciation as per the Board's circular No.495/16/1993-Cus-IV dt.26.5.1993. Whereas the impugned order set aside the adjudication order on the ground that there is no provision for reversal of credit in the CCR for removal of capital goods which are used and also held that Board's circulars are not appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng depreciation as per the Board's circular No.643/34/2002 dt. 1.7.2002 read with Circular No.495/16/1993-Cus. dt.26.5.93. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. The adjudicating authority in the order dt. 28.11.2003 has correctly demanded differential duty by applying depreciating as per the Board's circular above. However, taking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I take a lenient view that the respondents are not liable for penalty. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and OIO is restored to the extent of confirming the demand of Rs. 6,89,987/- and interest. Penalty is waived. The revenue's appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. (Operative part of the order pronounced in ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
