Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1901 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - pet coke sold to customer - denial on the ground that credit could not have been taken without receiving the inputs in the factory - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- In this case, admittedly the inputs were not received in the factory but credit was taken. Therefore, credit was not admissible and should be reversed. However when invoices were raised subsequently, the appellants have reversed the credit and therefore seeking reversal again would mean payment of duty twice on the same goods. The law does not require reversal of the Cenvat credit taken twice by an assessee even if there was a procedural omission on their part. That being the position, the appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of the Cenvat Credit amount demanded from them Liability of Interest - HELD THAT:- Since the reversal of the credit made at the time of clearance which is in reality not a clearance actually amounts to reversal of credit, interest liability automatically arose and has to be discharged. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The law also does not permit raising of invoice on inputs which have not been received in the factory at all. Appellants have done so. Thus the appellants have neither done justice to their own system which they have adopted for accounting nor have they followed the law which is required to be followed in such cases. That being the position, in my opinion, penalty is required to be imposed even though penalty under Section 11AC could not be imposed. The waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demanded and penalty imposed is granted and stay against recovery is ordered during the pendency of appeal.
|