ITAT Annual Digest [Part 59]

This yearly digest analyses all the ITAT stories published at taxscan.in in 2023 Deletion of Income Tax Addition on successful Demonstration of Source of Cash Deposits to bank during Demonitization: ITAT dismisses Revenue Appeal The DCIT vs M/s. Atulah Contractors and Construction Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2152 The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee has successfully demonstrated source of cash deposit of Rs. 2,40,00,000 to its bank account during demonetization period thus upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Two member Bench comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg,

Judicial Member and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member held that the assessee has successfully demonstrated source of cash deposit of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- to its bank account during demonetization period and hence no addition can be made. The Tribunal upheld the decision of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. AO cannot step in the shoes of businessman to decide curtailing of excessive expenditure unless brought evidence of fraud: ITAT deletes addition Trak Services (P) Limited vs Income Tax Officer CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2153 The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that Adoption of value by AO on the date of transfer being hypothetical makes the addition non tenable under section 48 of the Income Tax Act. The two member bench consisting of Astha Chandra (Judicial member) and Shamim Yahya (Accountant member) held that the lower authorities have been completely wrong in making and sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,07,66,220/- on account of increase in sale consideration of shares, which needs to be deleted. Thus the appeal was allowed.  Capital gain exemption u/s 54F shall be available if assessee purchased Property outside India prior to amendment in Finance

Act, 2014: ITAT Khalid Sayed vs Centralized Processing Centre CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2156 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that capital gain exemption under Section 54F should be available if the assessee purchased property outside India prior to the amendment in Finance Act, 2014. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member) and N. K. Choudhry (Judicial Member) held that capital gain exemption under Section 54F should be available even if the assessee purchased property outside India prior to the amendment in Finance Act 2014. Therefore the bench allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. Mere adoption of information from Officer of investigation wing of Income Tax Dept cannot be characterized as bonafide belief of AO in absence of cogent material: ITAT quashes order of CIT(A) Bhaijee Commodities Pvt. Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2023

TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2157 The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) he that alleged information from other officer of the dept. has to be reckoned as abstract, ba and bare one and thus has no rational probative value and could not be acted upon by the AO under law. The two member bench consisting of Chandra Mohan Garg (Judicial member) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant member) he that they find overwhelming potency in the plea of the assessee that reasons recorded and approval granted thereon under Section 151 do not meet the requirement of law at all and thus the issuance of notice under Section 148 based on cryptic and nondescript reasons combined with a mechanical approval of the CIT that too on a narrow compass under Section 151 is not permissible in law. Thus the order was quashed and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.  No Income Tax Addition can be made if Assessee Successfully Demonstrated Source of Cash Deposits in Bank Account during Demonitization Period: ITAT The DCIT vs M/s. Bhanu Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2159

The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), held that the assessee has successfully demonstrated source of cash deposit to its bank account during demonetization period thus no income tax addition can be made under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The Bench comprising of Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Accountant Member noted that the sole basis for making addition in the hands of assessee under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act taken by the AO was that the cash balance is available was Rs. 7,055 and the assessee had deposited cash amount of Rs. 1,24,50,000 post demonetization period. It was observed that the financial statements of assessee clearly show that the assessee was consistently maintaining huge cash balance as per his business prudence and there was opening cash balance as well as huge cash withdrawals from 01.04.2016 till declaration of demonetization period amounting to Rs. 2,63,10,000/-which are much higher than the amounts of Rs. 1,24,50,000/- i.e. cash deposited by the assessee to its bank account during pre & post demonetization period.  Reopening of Assessment after 4 Year with Approval of Joint Commissioner is Invalid: ITAT Income-tax Officer vs M/s Maiden Marketing India Private Limited CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2160 The Mumbai Bench of Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the reopening of assessment after 4 years with the approval of joint commissioner was invalid. The two-member Bench of Amit Shukla, (Judicial Member) and Amarjit Singh, (Accountant Member) allowed the cross objection of the assessee dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue referring to the decision in Voltas Ltd. Vs. ACIT that as per provisions of Section 151(1) of the Income Tax Act sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner was a prerequisite for issuance of a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax after expiry of four years was liable to be seaside. ITAT directs Recomputation of Gain on grounds of AO failing to Treat surplus Amount as Short Term Capital Gain without giving benefit of Indexation Bhupinder Singh Julka vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2161 The Delhi bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) he that AO cannot treat surplus as capital gain without giving benefit of indexation. The two bench member consisting of M. Balaganesh (Accountant member) and Kul Bharat (Judicial member) he that the AO erred in treating the surplus to be short term capital gain without giving benefit of indexation, therefore the bench directed the AO to re-compute gain, if any after giving benefit of indexation as provided under law and decide the issue in the light of judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs Vembhu Vidyanathan. Thus the appeal was allowed. Moulds owned by Philips India as a part of block assets for purpose of Business are entitled to Depreciation at 30%: ITAT M/s. Philips India Limited vs ACIT

CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2166 The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the moulds owned by Philips India as a part of the block assets for the purpose of business are entitled to depreciation at 30%. The Two-member bench comprising of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) held that it is immaterial whether the plastic /rubber moulds were used in the factory premises of the assessee or vendors. Prime requirement is that moulds should be owned by the assessee, the same should be part of block assets shown by the assessee and these were put to use for the purpose of business of the assessee and the three requisite conditions have been fulfilled by the assessee in the present case and thus it is entitled to claim depreciation at 30%.  If Sales are not Disputed then Cash Deposited out of Sales cannot be Treated as Unexplained Income u/s 68 of Income Tax Act: ITAT DCIT vs Manuvel

Malabar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2162 The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), held that the cash deposited out of sales cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act once the sales are not disputed by the revenue. The Bench comprising of C.M. Garg, Judicial Member and M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member observed that as long as existence of stocks with the assessee is not doubted by the AO and cash sales made by the assessee is accepted by the AO, the entire cash deposits made in the sum of Rs 3,43,50,000 stands duly explained and there is no case for making any addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. Short Term Capital Gain disposed off within a Short Span of time will not justify the Gain to be treated as Business Income: ITAT Trident Commerce Pvt. Ltd vs ITO CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2164 The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the short-term capital gain disposed off within a short span of time will not justify the gain to be treated as business income. The Two-member bench comprising of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) held that the assessee has purchased shares and disposed of them within a short span of time will not justify the gain to be treated as business income while the same was shown in the investment portfolio in the books of the assessee. TDS deducted in hands of Transferor Company shall belong to Transferrer Company when Amalgamation Scheme is approved by HC: ITAT Popular Complex Advisory Pvt. Ltd. vs

ITO CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2163 The Kolkata bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) deducted in the hands of the transferor company shall belong to the transferrer company when the amalgamation scheme is approved by the High Court.  The Two-member bench comprising of Rajesh Kumar (Accountant member) and Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial member) examined the Form 26AS of the amalgamating companies and found that TDS is deducted in the name of transferee companies but that is immaterial when the scheme is approved by the High Court as post the appointed date, the TDS deducted in the hands of the transferor company shall belong to the transferee company. Re-Assessment without issuance of Notice u/s 143(2) is void: ITATGonuguntla Nirmala Devi vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2167 The Hyderabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that the re-assessment without issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 was void. The two-member Bench of Ramakanta Panda, (Vice President) and K.Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member)dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that , “In this case, it’s not the case of the assessee that there was any assessment under section 143(3) or section 147 of the Act earlier. Then the case of the assessee falls not under section 151(1), but it falls under section 151(2) of the Act, in which case the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner is sufficient. Assessee has no good case on this point.” Section 56(2)(vii)(3) of Income Tax Act Not Applicable for Bonus Shares:ITAT quashes Appeal DCIT vs Smt Aruna Chandhok CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2168 The New Delhi bench of ITAT quashed the appeal by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), (the appellant) for levying Income tax from Aruna

Chandhok, (the respondent) for the bonus shares she received, as per section 56(2)(vii)(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A    two-member bench consisting of M.Balganesh (Accountant Member) and Anubhava Sharma (Judicial Member) after hearing the both sides held the CIT(A) had rightly appreciated the contentions of Aruna Chandhok and granted relief to her. The appeal was hence dismissed by the Tribunal. Taxability of Data Processing Fees paid by assessee to its overseas branch cannot treated as FTS as per India-France DTAA: ITAT BNP PARIBAS vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2169 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that taxability of date processing fees paid by assessee to its overseas branch could not be treated as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as per India France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Vikas Awasthy, (Judicial Member) held that payment made by the assessee to Singapore branch cannot be treated as FTS. Therefore, the above ground raised by the assessee was allowed the tribunal.

Failure to produce Confirmation Letter and Supporting Evidence of Promotion Expenses Incurred towards Medicine Agency: ITAT upholds Addition M/s. Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2171 The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the addition as the assessee had failed to produce confirmation letter and promotion expenses incurred towards the medicine agency. The two-member Bench of Annapurna Gupta, (Accountant Member) and Siddhartha Nautiyal, (Judicial Member) dismissed the appeal filed the assessee holding that the assessee in the instant facts, had not been able to produce any supporting evidence with respect to promotion expenses incurred towards “Medicine Agency, and no reply / confirmation from the aforesaid party had been received. Rate of tax applicable to Domestic Banking Companies are not Same as Foreign Banking Company: ITAT BNP PARIBAS vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2169 The Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that the rate of tax applicable to domestic banking companies is not the same as foreign banking companies. Tax levied at a higher rate in the case of a foreign company is not to be regarded as a violation of the non-discrimination clause. Referred to the Explanation in the Section 90, inserted in the IT Act with retrospective effect from 01-04- 1962 as per which the higher tax rate in case of foreign company, should not be regarded as violation of nondiscrimination clause. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S,(Accountant Member ) and Vikas Awasthy, (Judicial Member)held that tax levied at a higher rate in the case of a foreign company is not to be regarded as a violation of the non-discrimination clause. There fore rate of tax applicable to domestic banking companies is not the same as foreign banking companies Non-Compliance behavior of assessee before Lower Authorities during Appellate Proceedings: ITAT directs to deposit cost of Rs 25,000/- In PM relief Fund M/s Tera Naturals Resources Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2170 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directed to deposit cost of Rs 25,000/- in Prime Minister Relief Fund (PMRF) due to non-compliance behavior of assessee before lower authorities during the appellate proceedings After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Waseem Ahmed ,(Accountant Member ) and T.R. Senthil Kumar, (Judicial Member) directed to deposit cost of Rs 25,000/- in Prime Minister Relief Fund

(PMRF) due to non-compliance behavior of assessee before lower authorities during the appellate proceedings . Sanjay Deshmukh,counsel appeared for the revenue and Djaran V Gandhi appeared for assessee. Interest amount paid by Indian branch to Foreign Head Office is not taxable in India under India France DTAA: ITAT BNP PARIBAS vs Assistant Commissioner of Income tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2169  The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench held that the interest amount paid by the Indian Branch to Foreign Head office was not taxable in India under India France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) held that interest paid by the Indian branch/PE to the head office/GE is not taxable in India.  Treatment of legal cost incurred by Hindustan Unilever in respect of merger of erstwhile Industrial Perfumes: ITAT directs Readjudication Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Addl.Commissioner of

Income-tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2158 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directed readjudication in respect of treatment of legal cost incurred by Hindustan Unilever on merger of erstwhile Industrial Perfumes Limited. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Chandra Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) observed that expenditure as per the provisions of Section 35DD of the Income Tax Act is required to be examined by the A.O on the basis of relevant material after providing opportunity to the assessee.  Speculative loss not eligible for set off against Non-Speculation Business Income: ITAT M/s Vision Millenium Exports P. Ltd. vs DCIT CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2175 The Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the speculative losses are not eligible for set off against the non-speculation business income. The Two-member bench comprising of Om Prakash Kant (Accountant member) and Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial member) held that no documentary evidence or explanation has been given by the assessee to controvert the finding of the lower authorities. Mere Wrong Claim by itself not Ipso Facto invite Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act if Bona Fides of Assessee’s Actions are Beyond Reasonable Doubt:

ITAT DCIT vs Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank CITATION:2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2173 The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that mere wrong claim by itself would not ipso facto invite the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, if bona fides of assessee’s actions were beyond the reasonable doubt. The two-member Bench of Saktijit Dey, (Vice President) and Pradip Kumar Kedia, (Accountant Member) observed that the imposition of penalty had flown from the additions/disallowances as listed in the preceding paragraph. Two of such disallowances/additions stood deleted in the quantum proceedings and therefore, the very basis for imposition of penalty would not survive any more. The Bench observed that the amalgamation had taken place resulting in the stationery becoming unusable and obsolete and bona fides of the losses claimed were sufficiently proved and onus that lay upon the assessee had been primarily discharged on the parameters of penalty proceedings. Failure to Distinct between Electric Fitting Installed in Factory and

Office Premises: ITAT Allows Higher Depreciation to Office Electric Fittings SuperAlloy Castings P. Ltd vs ACIT CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2174 The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has allowed higher depreciation to office electronic fittings on failure to distinguish between the electric fitting installed in factory and office premises. The two-member Bench of Saktijit Dey (Vice President) and Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee aside on this issue and directing the assessing officer to reverse the disallowance holding that the Assessing Officer himself had accepted the higher claim of 15% in Assessment Year 2014-15 and palpable merit had been found in the plea of the assessee towards correctness of higher depreciation claimed on electric fittings installed at the factory premises.  Increasing Value of Closing Stock of Raw Materials and Packing Materials Unutilized Balance of Modvat: ITAT directs

Readjudication Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Addl.Commissioner of Income-tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2158 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai bench directs readjudication related to the action of Assessing Officer for increasing the value of closing stock of the assessee during the assessment proceedings by an amount being unutilised Modvat. After considering the facts submitted by both parties, the two member bench of Padmavathy S (Accountant Member) and Chandra Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) directed readjudication related to the action of Assessing Officer for increasing the value of closing stock of the assessee during the assessment proceedings by an amount being unutilised Modvat. ITAT Dismisses Appeal by Income Tax Department as NCLT Admitted Application filed by Assessee u/s 14 of IBC ACIT vs M/s Dharitrimaa Urja Pvt. Ltd CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 2178 The Delhi Bench of Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax department as the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had admitted the application filed by the assessee under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 2016.  The two-member Bench of N . K . Billaiya, (Accountant Member) and Yogesh Kumar U.S., (Judicial Member) considering the fact that the NCLT in IB-408 (ND-2022) vide order dated 09/06/2023 had declared moratorium consequently, as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, it was order to prescribe the registration of suits or continuation of pendThis weekly summary analyses the stories related to the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that have been published at Taxscan.in. during the previous week from September 16 to September 22 2023. Subsequent Service of Order Copy is Date of Communication of Order-in-Original: CESTAT quashes Service Tax Demand Shree Developers vs Commissioner CGST & Central Excise 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1133 The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), quashed service tax demand and observed that the subsequent service of order copy is date of communication of order-in-original.   A Two-Member Bench comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and CL Mahar, Technical

Member observed that “We are of the view that the subsequent service of the order copy to the appellant on 22.07.2022 is the date of communication of the order-in-original to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal filed on 19.09.2022 is well within the prescribed time limit of two months (60days), therefore, there is no delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a fresh order on merits of the case.” “Our view, authorised legal representative cannot be equated with an authorised agent of the assessee. For this reason, also service of the order to authorised representative i.e. Chartered Accountant dealing with the matter before the Adjudicating Authority is not legal and proper” the Tribunal noted. Relief to Tata Motors: CESTAT allows Excise Duty Exemption to Chassis on Projects funded by International Organization M/s Tata

Motors Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1136 In a major relief to M/s Tata Motors Limited, the appellant, the Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), allowed excise duty exemption to Chassis on projects funded by International Organization. A Two-Member Bench comprising Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan, Member (Technical) observed that “As in the appellant’s own case, the benefit of exemption Notification against Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 as amended vide Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008, is given by this Tribunal, therefore, following the said decision, we allow the exemption under Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.1995 as amended vide Notification No.13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008 as the appellant has cleared the Chassis in question to the projects funded by International Organization.” CESTAT Remands Matter of Cenvat Credit Reversal for Verification of Actual Availment and Substantive Reversal Rohm &

Hass (I) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1137 The Mumbai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) remanded the matter of cenvat credit reversal for verification of actual availment and substantive reversal. A two member bench comprising Mr C J Mathew, Member (Technical) and Mr Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) observed that “the utilization of credit for cleared products is tantamount to reversal and, hence, recovery of such credit is an exercise in superfluity. These decisions were not available with the adjudicating authority then and has settled the law on recovery thereupon. Learned Authorized Representative has suggested that actual availment and corresponding substantive reversal need to be verified.” The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original authority for such verification and to limit recovery, if any, only to such credit as is in excess of that availed on procurement of the three products. Gold Smuggling using Fabricated Challan: CESTAT Refuses to Release 26 Gold Biscuit Seized under Customs Act R. K. Angangbi Singh vs Commr. of Customs 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1141 The Chennai bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)refused to release 26 gold biscuit seized under Customs Act,1962 as the gold was smuggled using fabricated challan. A two member bench comprising Mr. R Muralidhar, Member (Judicial) and Mr.

Rajeev Tandon, Member (Technical) observed that Supreme Court in case of KL Pavanny v. Asstt. Collector (HQ), has had held that “a mere general corroboration is sufficient and each of the detail was not required to be gone into. It even upheld the validity of the statement, containing wealth of information that was retracted in close proximity of making it and therefore disallowed the said retraction.” The CESTAT held that no case is made out by the appellants, calling for interference in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal upheld the order and dismissed the appeals filed. CESTAT set aside Demand of Proportionate Cenvat Credit as Assessee Reversed the Same along with Interest M/s. Neelachal Ispat Nigam Limited vs Commissioner of CGST & CX, 2023 TAXSCAN (CESTAT) 1143 The

Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside demand of proportionate cenvat credit as assessee reversed the same along with interest.There is no need to demand of proportionate cenvat credit when the assessee itself reversed the same as per the amendment on Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. A two member bench comprising Shri Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial) and Shri k. Anpazhakan, Member(Technical) held that “proportionate reversal of cenvat credit will suffice to meet the end of justice in the proceeding before us. Therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.”

Leave a Reply