9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been destroyed in the floods but the appellant took credit on the inputs destroyed in the floods. 3. During the course of audit in the year 2007, it was pointed out by the audit party that the appellant is not entitled to avail credit on inputs which have been destroyed in the floods. The appellant reversed the credit along with the interest. Later-on, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Both the lower authorities confirmed the penalty on the appellant. Against the said order the appellant is before me. 4. The learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that out of total amount of duty of Rs. 3,33,778/- and a sum of Rs. 1,27,688/- pertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s credit is not maintainable at this stage. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the records. 7. The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order where the claim of excess reversal of credit has not been contested by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore the same is not a subject matter before me. Accordingly, I reject the claim of excess reversal of the credit. Further, I find that in the case of J.K. Cement Works (supra) this Tribunal has considered the issue in hand before me and in that case the goods were destroyed in the floods before the inputs could be used in manufacturing of final product and in that case also no information was given and the credit was reversed on being pointed out by the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such cases. Therefore following the Tribunal's judgment in case of M/s. Punjab Communications Ltd. (supra), I hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant. The part of the impugned order upholding penalty on the Appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed."
8. Therefore following the ratio of the decision in the case of J.K. Cement (supra) of Co-ordinate Bench and to maintain consistence of the views of the Tribunal and to get the faith of the society, I am of the view that in such situation, mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is not imposable on the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order quo imposing penalty is set aside. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
