Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1210 - HC - Central ExciseReversal of Cenvat credit - no disclosure made that M/s. BPCL the supplier of the inputs was visited with the penalty under Rule 173 Q - Held that:- both the show cause cum demand notice to M/s. BPCL, and the Order-in-original passed against it do not contain the allegations and finding that there was any willful mis-statement or suppression of facts by M/s. BPCL or contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, or the Rules framed thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that in the adjudication against the present assessee, the adjudicating authority could not have speculated about what the case against M/s. BPCL was, and what are the findings rendered against them. They ought to have been accepted and for what they are and once they do not contain any finding of the above nature, then, Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, was not attracted. The Tribunal rightly held that by mere imposition of penalty under Rule 173 Q, the inferences drawn by the adjudicating authority, cannot be sustained. Those were mere conjectures and surmises on the part of the adjudicating authority. Since the ingredients of Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules were not attracted, the Order-in-original was rightly set aside. We do not see how the substantial questions of law can be answered except by upholding the order of the Tribunal. - Decided against the Revenue
|