Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 101 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - capital goods - intent to evade - suppression of facts - contravention of Rule 3 (5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 8 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - extended period of limitation - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The period involved in the case on hand is 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the Department audit took place between February 2017 and April 2017. Till that time, the appellant should have filed its monthly/ER-1 returns regularly/periodically/quarterly/monthly, as is applicable, possibly with the help of its auditors. If the bona fides were to be believed, then the grave irregularity, as pointed out by the Revenue, should have been attempted to be set right on its own before being pointed out since the monthly/regular ER-1 returns were not filed blindly. Obviously, therefore, upon being pointed out, the appellant felt exposed, made payments without even questioning the delay, if any, in the Revenue’s audit nor did it even raise the issue of invoking the larger period when the Show Cause Notice was issued, but accepted the appropriation of its payment towards duty and interest. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there is no challenge by the assessee-appellant to the invoking of larger period which has the same ingredients as that of Section 11AC (1) (a) ibid. It is therefore difficult to accept that the ingredients would apply for one and not when it comes to the issue of penalty - there is no provision similar to Section 73 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 under the Central Excise Act, but rather a specific provision for penalty is there under Section 11AC. In most of the cases, facts are different, like there is quantification of duty, the payment of Service Tax was made before the issuance of Show Cause Notice which again stands on a different footing; in some cases, the penalty apparently was directed to be deleted for no suppression, but here the same is clearly for suppression of facts coupled with contravention of various provisions. Appeal dismissed.
|