2007 (10) TMI 122

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee neither challenged their above lapse nor produced the required documents – Appeal against imposition of fine & penalty is dismissed as impugned order is based on evidence
Justice R.K. Abichandani, President [Order per]- The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7.6.2007, upholding the order-in-original by which demand of Rs.33,893/- was confirmed and penalty 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 hearing given, fixing as many as ten dates of hearing. The appellant informed the Revenue that the issue was an old one and it was difficult to trace the record, since the dealing assistant had retired. 3. On the basis of the material on record, it was found that the appellant did not inform the department about the fact that the cenvat credit on capital goods was utilized, even though the depr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was taken, while also claiming depreciation under the Income Tax Act. The belated assertion of the appellant that it had not taken Cenvat credit of the amount of Rs.25,270/-, was not supported by any evidence, despite several opportunities being given. Therefore, the Appellate Commissioner has rightly found that there was conscious and deliberate withholding of information by the appellant. 4. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X