9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther, it can also be seen that the appellant had challenged before the Tribunal the allegation of wrong availment of credit and submitted only that they would not be seeking re-credit of the same for the reason that they had already surrendered the registration of the factory. The authorities below have confirmed the interest on the basis that the appellant has not challenged the demand of wrongfully availed credit. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice is that the assessee did not bring the machine into the factory and suppressed the purchase and receipt of the machine in their factory for which the Show Cause Notice was issued. This allegation is now proved to be wrong after the verification by the Range Officer. In such circumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic direction to pass appropriate orders after verification whether the capital goods were in the factory. In such de novo adjudication, the original authority after receiving the report from the Range Officer, upheld the interest liability, however, set aside the penalty proposed in the Show Cause Notice. Against such confirmation of demand of interest, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide order impugned herein, the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the liability to pay the interest of ₹ 12,094/- for the period 6-9-2007 to 19-3-2008 on the wrongly availed credit. The appellant is now before the Tribunal against such order. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri M. Rajendran appeared and argu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question in the factory. If the assessee is able to prove that the spectrometer in its factory is the one imported on 10-7-2007 under the relevant Bill of Entry, then there is no ground for holding that the assessees did not bring the machine into their factory and therefore they had suppressed the purchased and receipt of the machine in their factory so as to justify any penalty on them. Thereupon, the matter was adjudicated by the original authority after taking verification from the Range Officer as to the presence of the capital goods. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel that the Range Officer had reported that the capital goods have been received in the factory. The Ld. Counsel submitted that though the appellant had challenged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout any factual basis. Further, it can also be seen that the appellant had challenged before the Tribunal the allegation of wrong availment of credit and submitted only that they would not be seeking re-credit of the same for the reason that they had already surrendered the registration of the factory. The authorities below have confirmed the interest on the basis that the appellant has not challenged the demand of wrongfully availed credit. It has to be noted that the appellant all along has challenged the demand of wrongful availment of credit and only conceding that they would not be seeking re-credit of the same for the reason of surrender of their registration and that such re-credit would not be of any use to them. When the capital ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
