Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1605 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of CENVAT credit - documentation that was not consistent with the requirements prescribed in rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - period from April 2009 to August 2009 - HELD THAT:- The identical controversy dealt with by Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik has upheld the eligibility for CENVAT credit despite the alleged deficiencies. In doing so, reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW [2006 (11) TMI 521 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS PRIYADARSHINI CABLE LTD. [2005 (1) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI]. Furthermore, the decision of the Tribunal in ACE TYRES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-IV [2017 (2) TMI 533 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] on identical facts, has also held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied. Penalties - HELD THAT:- With the demand being unsustainable in consequence, the penalties imposed on the assessee as well as the individual also fail. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|