9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of compliance during the financial year. When the act of the appellant is not recognised in law, there is no ground for alleging non-disclosure of that fact of change is suppression - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL NO: E/85086/2016 - A/92239/2017 - Dated:- 3-11-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Makrand Joshi, Advocate for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods as provided for in rule 6(3)i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In April 2008 and February 2009 and for the period from December 2008 and beyond, appellant reversed 10% for 18 clearances and reversed proportionate credit of inputs in the other seven clearances. The change in option within the same financial year is not permitted as per explanation (I) of rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t are clearly enumerated therein implies that penalty is liable to be imposed only in those conditions and none other. The original authority has rendered the finding that the declaration in ER-1 is not sufficient and that, but for the diligence shown by the tax officer, this would have gone unnoticed. It is clear that rule 6(3) does not envisage a change in the method of compliance during the fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
