9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within which the goods are required to be returned to principal manufacturer, who is the appellant. The liability of interest is limited to the amount of CENVAT credit only for the period beyond 180 days, when goods were not returned and credit continued in the assessee’s books of accounts. Only the liability of interest for the period exceeding the 180 days’ limit when CENVAT credit continued in the assessee’s account is sustained and for requantification of said liability of interest, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/50207/2017-SM - Final Order No. 53405/2017 - Dated:- 22-5-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Shri Shashwat, Advocate - for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f said Cenvat credit of ₹ 12,46,769/- along with interest and penalty. (v) The department vide order-in-original confirmed the said demand. Later, the appellant went in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the demand, interest and penalty. Therefore, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. With the background of above facts, both sides represented by ld. Counsels, Shri Shaswat and Ms. Sukriti Das, for the appellant and Ms. Kanu Verma Kumar for the Revenue have been heard. 4. After careful consideration of the facts on record and submissions of both the sides, it appears that the period involved in dispute is from 31.8.2010 to 23.1.2011 and Show Cause Notice has been issued on 7.4.2014 that is almost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 8(1-A) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 on unpaid amount of tax and that such liability arises automatically by operation of law. This Court also held that fresh notice of demand not necessary where amount of tax or other dues reduced as a result of the appeal, revision or other proceedings. 13. This Court had an occasion to consider sub-section (1-A) of Section 8 of the Act in the case of Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works v. State of U.P., (1974) 3 SCC 137 and held that the liability to pay interest under Section 8(1-A) of the Act is automatic and arises by operation of law. It was further observed in that case that it is not necessary for the Sales Tax Officer to specify the amount of interest in the recovery certificate. 14. .... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
