Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 337 - CESTAT BANGALORERule 4(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 - Simultaneous availment of CENVAT credit and claiming of depreciation – Cenvat Credit taken by appellant was rectified while filing income tax returns for the subsequent financial years - Contravention of Rule 4(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 was undone and therefore the denial of the entire CENVAT credit taken on the capital goods is unjustified – Held that:- Appellant has not cared to produce any income tax assessment order to substantiate the plea of rectification of the so-called "mistake –Appellant were acting in blatant contravention of the mandate of Rule 4(4) as rightly held in the case of Yee Kay Technocrat (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV [2011 (1) TMI 544 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. Such contravention of the Rule cannot be nullified by any "corrective measures" taken before Income Tax authorities - The complicated procedure adopted by the appellant - Credit wrongly availed, to be denied – Decided against the Assessee. Limitation – Extended period to be invoked - Show-cause notice invoked Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act – Show cause Notice did not allege any of the ingredients of Rule 15(2) in support of the proposal for penalizing the party – Held that:- It appeared that appellant misunderstood the mandate of Rule 4(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The party appears to have thought that the CENVAT credit taken by them could be maintained by taking "corrective action" before the Income Tax Authorities in subsequent years. The facts of this case do not disclose any mens rea, for the purpose of penalizing the party. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 was not specifically invoked in the show-cause notice. Penalty under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC do not sustain on appellant – Extended period not allowed - Decided in favor of Assessee.
|