Commissioner, CGST And C. EX Versus Sacmi Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 1316 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 261 (Guj.)
GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 15-2-2018
Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2018
Central Excise
MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B. N. KARIA, JJ.
\nFor The Appellant : Priyank P Lodha, Advocate
\nORAL ORDER
\n(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
\n1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment of CESTAT dated 31.05.2017 raising following question for our consideration:
\n “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Hon'ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in allowing the Appeal of the Respondent and in interpreting provisi<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n of correction in the books of accounts and that too before filing the monthly Return. In these circumstances, the observations of the Tribunal in the case of S. Subramanyan & Co (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the principle laid down by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries (supra) on different facts and circumstances is not applicable to the present case. In view of the above, the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner, CGST And C. EX Versus Sacmi Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd.Central Excise2018 (2) TMI 1316 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 261 (Guj.)GUJARAT HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 15-2-2018Tax Appeal No. 24 of 2018 Central ExciseMR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. B. N. KARIA, JJ. For The Appellant : Priyank P Lodha, … Continue reading “Commissioner, CGST And C. EX Versus Sacmi Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10496","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. It can thus be seen that contrary to what the Revenue contended, this was not the case of the assessee suomotu availing recredit but a case of mere correction of incorrect<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n