Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 79 - CESTAT NEW DELHICENVAT Credit - credit availed based on supplementary invoices - valid documents to take Cenvat credit as per Rule 9(1) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not - wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or not. The logic in the SCN is that since the short paid duty was paid when the officers pointed out, it means the Silicon had not paid duty by reason of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade. HELD THAT:- Clearly, there can be no legal presumption of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or violation of Act or Rules with an intent to evade if the assessee, on being pointed out by the officers, pays the differential duty. We fail to understand how the Additional Commissioner made such a presumption and further, based on that presumption, issued the SCN to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant. He also had no jurisdiction to decide if Silicon, which is an assessee of the Vishakapatnam Commissionerate, had willfully misstated or suppressed facts or violated Act or Rules with an intent to evade. His jurisdiction in Jaipur is thousands of miles away from Silicon and he erred in arrogating to himself the jurisdiction over the assessee in Vishakapatnam. Both the lower authorities have clearly erred in upholding the demand, interest and penalties proposed in the SCN. The impugned order is based on the presumption of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts and further, such presumption is regarding an assessee (Silicon) over which they had no jurisdiction at all. The impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant - Appeal allowed.
|