Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2015 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1353 - AT - Service TaxLevy of interest and penalty on reversal of CENVAT credit - they had only taken the CENVAT credit erroneously but had sufficient balance in their account of CENVAT credit - Held that:- date 1.4.2012 is the watermark i.e., the activities and the operations of an assessee (manufacturer or service provider) have to follow the provisions of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules as they existed then (before 1.4.2012); and after 1.4.2012 when the subject amendment was made, an assessee would be entitled to the benefit as provided by the said amendment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ind-Swift (2011 (2) TMI 6 - Supreme Court) and Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Pune-I vs. GL & V India Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (5) TMI 375 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) make the position clear that one cannot do away with the wording ‘OR’ as appeared in Rule 14 twice prior to the watermark date 1.4.2012 and one cannot replace the said wording ‘OR’ with the wording ‘AND’ and reading it so. Respondent viz., Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Bangalore has not been given any evidence other than the fact of taking wrong or erroneous CENVAT credit to prove appellant’s intention to evade payment of service tax. When no intention to evade payment of service tax is proved beyond doubt it will not be right to impose penalty on the appellant under Section 78 read with Rule 15(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Consequently on the issue of penalty, the appellant deserves relief and the impugned order in respect of penalty imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside. - appeal does not succeed on the issue of interest but the appellant will get relief on the penalty part as the penalty imposed on them has been set aside by this order. - Decided party in favour of assessee.
|