2016 (11) TMI 351

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri Satyapal, AR ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a unit located in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and availing the benefit of Notification No.56/02-CE dated 14.11.2002. During the preventive check, it was observed that the appellant has taken credit on the basis of invoices of capital goods in the month April,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellant was not going to get any benefit by taking the credit on the capital goods which has not been received in the factory. In fact, the appellant is entitled to take refund of the duty paid in the same month. Therefore, there was no intention to take inadmissible credit on the capital goods. Therefore, the penalty is not imposable. For the second issue, it is his submission that the credi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has availed the credit on the capital goods without receiving the same in the factory. Although the appellant was not going to gain any benefit by taking the credit on the capital goods which has not been received in the factory. There is procedural lapse on the part of the appellant. For this, the penalty under section 27 is imposable on the appellant. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no specific statutory provision pertaining to return of amount deposited under a mistake, per se, in our opinion, should not deter us from directing the respondents to return such amount. Admittedly, there is no prohibition under the Act from returning such an amount. Allowing the respondents to retain such amount would be, in our opinion, highly inequitable. We may not be seen to suggest that s....