9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty to establish the transfer of the capital goods from their Mumbai office to Mangalore - Further, before the Commissioner (A), the appellant did produce some photocopies of the documents to prove the transfer of capital goods from Mumbai to Mangalore but the Commissioner (A) refused to take cognizance of the same on the ground that they were not produced before the Original Authority and the Original Authority did not get a chance to examine those documents and therefore, the Commissioner (A) refused to take cognizance of the documentary evidences produced before him. It is deemed fit to remand the case to the Original Authority with a direction to pass a fresh de novo order after affording an opportunity to the appellant to produce all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciation under Income Tax on the value of capital goods which is inclusive of the duty, have rendered themselves ineligible for availment of the CENVAT credit. It was also observed that the BOE on which appellant has taken credit is addressed to their Mumbai office and there is no endorsement evidencing the transfer of goods to the appellant. In absence of the endorsement in the Bill of Entry, the appellant are not eligible to avail the credit on the goods received by Z.K. Beauty Fitness Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai as per Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Further, the appellant has availed the credit after a lapse of 2 years from the date of Bill of Entry whereas as per Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 50% of credit on capital goods has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts, law and the evidences on record. He further submits that the Learned Commissioner in his finding has observed that the appellant has filed the Bill of Entry in the name of their office at Mumbai but had taken the credit in Mangalore with proving the transfer of the said capital goods from Mumbai to Mangalore. He further submits that during the course of hearing before the Commissioner (A), the appellant did produce photocopies of three consignment notes to prove the transfer of these capital goods from Mumbai to Mangalore but the Learned Commissioner (A) refused to take cognizance on the ground that these documents w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the capital goods from their Mumbai office to Mangalore. Further, before the Commissioner (A), the appellant did produce some photocopies of the documents to prove the transfer of capital goods from Mumbai to Mangalore but the Commissioner (A) refused to take cognizance of the same on the ground that they were not produced before the Original Authority and the Original Authority did not get a chance to examine those documents and therefore, the Commissioner (A) refused to take cognizance of the documentary evidences produced before him. In view of this finding of the Commissioner, I deem it fit to remand the case to the Original Authority with a direction to pass a fresh de novo order after affording an opportunity to the appellant to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
