9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable in law with regard to disallowing the CENVAT credit of ₹ 1,490/- on the ground that on invoices the address of Head Office is mentioned. This is also not a very valid objection for denying the CENVAT credit more so when the defect has also been cured by the appellant. The penalty under Section 11AC also not justified. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order with consequential relief - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/23794/2014-SM - Final Order No. 21369 / 2016 - Dated:- 9-12-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. S. V. Venugopala Rao, CA For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sited voluntarily before the issue of show-cause notice along with interest and imposed penalties and also denied the CENVAT credit of ₹ 1,490/- under Rule 14 of CCR. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected their appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire demand in the show-cause notice is hit by limitation because there is no suppression of fact or fraud alleged in the show-cause notice. He further submitted that the appellant deposited CENVAT credit along with interest even before the issue of show-cause notice, therefore, the respondent should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) to this effect are not challenged. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are as under: 5. As regards the imposition of penalty ofRs.4,03,183/- I find that just because appellants are registered since long and are one of the highest revenue payers, does not prove the intent to evade duty. On the contrary being one of the highest revenue payers and taking into consideration the fact that on being pointed out the appellants having immediately paid duty along with interest shows that they had no intention of evading duty. The Department has also not alleged any suppression. 6.1 Similarly in ISMT Ltd. (surpa) on identical facts, this Tribunal in para 8 (b) has observed as under: 8(b) With regard to the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
