2016 (12) TMI 327

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... duty paid on various inputs, capital goods and input services. The appellants were issued a show-cause notice alleging irregular availment of credit of Rs. 53,244/- for the period from 31/03/2007 to 31/05/2007 on the input service of Engineering Consulting services availed by the appellant for setting up their second unit. After adjudication, the original authority allowed the credit and dropped the proceedings vide order dt. 18/09/2009. The Department preferred appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and vide order dt. 25/02/2010 the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority observing that the appellant is eligible for credit. The Department approached the Tribunal by filing appeal No.E/1931/2010 and the Tribunal vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll as the Commissioner(Appeals) had held that the appellant is eligible for credit. The appellant had filed ERI returns and had disclosed the credit availed to the Department and that there was no suppression of facts, fraud or willful misstatement on the part of the appellant with intent to evade payment of duty. The learned counsel relied upon the decision laid in Chinthamani Lamination Vs. CST, Ahmedabad [2014(33) STR 327 (Tri. Ahmd.)] to support his contention that the credit is admissible to the appellant and that as the credit was rightly availed there was no ground for alleging any suppression, fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant. He also canvassed the proposition that the situation did not give rise to any revenu....