SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

MATHEW JOHN
Kochar Sung Up Acrylic Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Gautam Chugh,R.K. Mathur

ORDER

1. In this proceeding a stay petition filed in an appeal against an order passed in second round of proceedings is being considered. After hearing both sides, I find that the amount involved is very small and the matter involved is very old and the impugned order is not just and fair. So, I find it proper to decide both stay application and appeal together.

2. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 11.3.2007. The issue involved in this case is that the appellant took certain amounts of Cenvat credits during financial years 1.11.1998 to 27.12.2004 totalling to Rs. 1,11,193/- and simultaneously they had capitalised such excise duty paid and claimed depreciation on such amount also. Since Cenvat Credit Rules did not permit such simultaneous benefit under Income Tax Act and Cenvat Credit Rules on the same amount, Revenue raised an objection that the appellants should pay back the excess Cenvat credit taken. Proceeding was initiated for the purpose. On culmination of such proceeding an amount of Rs.1,11,193/- stands confirmed against the appellant along with a demand for interest of Rs. 1,42,007/- with a penalty of Rs. 1,11,193/- imposed under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of Centra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top