9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the appeals itself can be decided at this stage. After waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, I take up the appeals for disposal. The issue involved in this appeal is common therefore, they are decided by a common order. 3. Briefly stated common facts of the case are that the appellant, a PSU, is engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods falling under Chapter 27 of CETA, 1985. The appellant also avails CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs capital goods. During the course of audit, the appellant's records, it was found that they have wrongly availed CENVAT credit of 161806/- during the financial year 2004-05 inasmuch as, availed CENVAT, (i) credit on inputs s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is only a bona fide mistake, at best it can be termed as procedural infringement and not misdeclaration or suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. So far as the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 1,54,711/- availed from March 2007 to July 2007 on input service received by them before 10-9-2004. The contention of the appellant is that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, at best it can be termed as interpretational error. The department has failed to bring out that there was any suppression or misdeclaration and the other ingredients incorporated under proviso to Section 11A and under Section 11AC. Therefore equal amount of penalty is not imposable in this case. 5. The ld. JDR reiterates the finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here they had intention to evade the Central Excise duty. So far as the CENVAT credit amount of Rs. 161806/- input service received by them before 10-9-2004, undisputedly, the appellant has reversed the CENVAT credit along with interest as soon as they were pointed out. I find force in the contention of the appellant that they did not have any intention to evade payment of duty and inadmissible credit taken on the ground of input short received excess credit than the duty paid input and CENVAT credit on the basis of the extra copy of the invoice is not due to the intention to evade payment of duty and is only a bona fide mistake and at the best it can be termed as procedural infringement and not misdeclaration or suppression of facts with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
