TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned counsel that during the relevant period appellant had substantial amount of cenvat credit in their books of account and there was no need to avail wrong credit at all - It is noticed that as on 01.01.2009, appellant had a balance of cenvat credit of basic excise duty amounting to Rs. 33,16,254/- whereas, the credit taken on these five invoices is only Rs. 4,18,840/-.Therefore, it cannot be said that there was deliberate intention to boost the cenvat credit account - Therefore, taking note of the fact thatappellant had paid duty and interest as soon as the same was pointed out and before issue of show cause notice, this was a fit case for not issue of show cause notice under the provisions of Section 11A (2B) of Central Excise Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cers informed the appellants that the credit availed by them was wrong, one the same day i.e. on 10.01.2009, the date of visit of officers, the appellants paid the total amount of cenvat credit taken by them with interest. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated proposing to appropriate the amount already paid towards wrongly availed credit with interest and proposing to impose penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in respect of credit taken on MS Channels, Beams, Angles etc., amounting to Rs. 9050/-, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Limited 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. Larger Bench), the issue is settled against the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Reliance Industries. It was the submission of learned Counsel that mistake has occurred because the invoice shows the different types of duties and in the end, there was a line total duty foregone , and under this head, all the amounts payable as duty was totalled and indicated as duty foregone. There is no doubt the persons handling the subject matter should ensure that wrong credit is not availed. Normally the break up of duty paid is indicated when duty is paid but not when duty is not paid. Under these circumstances, the claim that it was a mistake and not an attempt to avail irregular credit looks reasonable. This is further give reinforced by the fact by submissions made by learned counsel that appellant was purchasing goods from M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l these facts and circumstances would show that the claim of the appellant that there was no intention on their part to suppress the facts and avail the credit wrongly, is acceptable. Therefore, taking note of the fact that appellant had paid duty and interest as soon as the same was pointed out and before issue of show cause notice, this was a fit case for not issue of show cause notice under the provisions of Section 11A (2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since I find that there was no suppression of facts, this part of impugned order cannot sustain and the issue is treated as closed as far as this amount is concerned. 3. As regards amount of Rs. 27,203/-, it is noticed from the invoice that invoice clearly shows that what was paid was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
