2015 (10) TMI 1670

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pakshi Rajan, (AR) ORDER Per: B S V Murthy: The appellant was functioning as M/s. Kalmar India Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2006 and had two premises one in Mumbai and another in Bangalore. In March 2006, the Bangalore premises cleared inputs as such and reversed equivalent credit ofRs.24,83,035/-. The inputs were received in Mumbai and in the ST-3 returns in May 2006, the amount reversed by the Ban....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. 2. After hearing both the sides I found that the appeal itself can be decided. Accordingly, the payment of pre-deposit is waived and appeal is taken up for final decision. 3. The only ground on which CENVAT credit has been denied and demanded is that the appellant should have reversed it and transferred it under a proper invoice. As a result of merger, what has happened is that all the credit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the stock of inputs just by reversal without raising a proper invoice to their Mumbai Unit was not in accordance with the law. Since the denial of credit cannot be sustained, the demand for CENVAT credit availed with interest and penalty under Section 78 on the appellant cannot be sustained. Further, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed under Section 77 of Finance Act, 1994 for contravention ....