9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that the appellant has failed to produce any further evidence in this regard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Auto Ignition Ltd. [2008 (4) TMI 43 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the onus of proof of availment of credit by the assessee is on the Revenue - With regard to the ratio of this judgment, the Revenue has failed to produce any evidence to show that the appellant had availed credit pertaining to the disputed capital goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Ex. Appeal No.75340/18 - FO/75163/2018 - Dated:- 25-5-2018 - SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri P.K. Saha, C.A. for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S. Chattopadhyay Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) vide stay order dated 07.10.2010 directed the appellant to deposit Rs. as a condition for admitting the appeal of the appellant. Against this stay order, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, which was dismissed. The appellant further filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. Before the matter got listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for hearing, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order dated 22.02.2011 rejecting the appeal of the appellant on the ground of non-compliance of the order of pre-deposit. On appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2013 remanded the matter back to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pares damaged in the fire was ₹ 1,84,83,828/-. Therefore, the total amount that the appellant was required to reverse was ₹ 69,56,258/- computed @16.32%. However, the appellant had reversed only ₹ 33,20,536/- and therefore, there was a short-reversal of credit of ₹ 36,65,722/-. 6. On perusal of records, I find that the appellant has relied upon the Block Addition register and Chartered Accountant's certificate which was issued based on the Block Addition register to convince the Bench that the capital goods in question were procured prior to 01.03.1994. I find that the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted based on this evidence alone, and that the appellant has failed to produce any further evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
