Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 441 - CESTAT AHMEDABADAvailment of cenvat credit - Cenvat credit utilised for the manufacturer of exempted products - Penalty u/s 11A(2B) - Held that:- The Adjudicating Authority has not given any reason for imposing equivalent amount as penalty. The First Appellate Authority has recorded that the appellant herein has suppressed and indulged in committing fraud which is unsubstantiated. On the perusal of the show-cause-notice though there is allegation of suppression or fraud committed by the appellant herein for taking cenvat credit, on deeper perusal of the show-cause-notice, I find that the said show-cause-notice does not indicate any reasons for invoking the extended period of limitation - first Appellate Authority cannot justify the imposition of penalty by recording reasoning which were not invoked in the show-cause notice. In view of this the equivalent penalty imposed on the appellant is improper and needs to be set aside. The appeal to the extend it challenges the upholding of imposition of equivalent of penalty is set aside and the impugned order to that extent is set aside. As the appellant on being pointed out reversed the amount and is not contesting the issue on merits, the interest liability gets fastened; even as per the provisions of section 11A(2B), interest liability needs to be discharged by an assessee when he reversed an amount on his own or being pointed out by an office. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that interest liability of ₹ 27,366/- for improper availment of cenvat credit needs to be upheld - Following decision of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the liability to interest is upheld and penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|