2019 (6) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the course of audit of the records of the appellant, the Department audit party observed that the service provider had imported capital goods viz. various fitness equipment valued at Rs. 1,11,25,152/- during May 2011 vide Bill of Entry No.3501423 dated 14.05.2011 which were procured by them for providing the "Health club and fitness centre" service. It was observed they had claimed depreciation under Income Tax on the total value of plant and machinery including above capital goods and also availed full CENVAT credit during April 2013 amounting to Rs. 9,93,688/-. In view of the Rule 4(4) of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004, the appellant by availing the benefit of depreciation under Income Tax on the value of capital goods which is inclusive of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ciation claimed on the capital goods. Appellant filed their detailed submissions dated 13.05.2016 and subsequently the SCN was adjudicated and the demand of irregular CENVAT credit of Rs. 9,93,688/- was confirmed along with interest. A penalty of Rs. 9,93,688/- was imposed on the appellant in terms of Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at this case may be remanded to the Original Authority with a direction to pass a de novo order after considering the entire evidence of the appellant. 5. On the other hand, the Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant imported the capital goods at their Mumbai office but later on transferred to Mangalore and claimed the CENVAT credit and depreciation on the capital goods but the appellant did not produce any documents before the Adjudicating Authority to establish the transfer of the capital goods from their Mumbai office to Mangalore. Further, before the Commissioner (A), the appellant did produce some photocopies of ....