Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (8) TMI 657

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the confirmation of demand of Rs. 80,28,546/- and equivalent amount of penalty. Since the issue involved in this case is in a narrow compass, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount is allowed and we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellants. The Cenvat credit is sought to be denied to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by one M/s J and J Precision Industries have cleared the final products on payment of duty, by availing irregular and illegible Cenvat Credit on the inputs received by them. The current appellant is one of the purchasers of the final product is cleared by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the duty assessed under Rule 6 and interest payable thereon. On the issue of availment of credit by the user-manufacturer, it is clarified that action against the consignee to reverse/recover the CENVAT Credit availed of in such cases need not be resorted to as long as the bona fide nature of the consignee's transaction is not in dispute. In case the manufacturer-supplier has received payment from the buyer (including the amount shown as duty of excise) i.e., the person taking CENVAT Credit has made payment of the invoice amount, action should also be taken against the manufacturer-supplier under Sections 11D and 11DD of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On a plain reading of the above reproduced Circular of the CBEC, it is very c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me when the show cause notice was issued, provided for the recovery of Credit taken on account of error, omission or misconstruction on the part of officer or manufacturer or an assessee. As far as the appellants are concerned there was neither any error nor any misconstruction on their part. We also do not find any substance in the submission of the learned SDR that larger period of limitation will be invokable irrespective of the fact that fraud has not been committed by the appellants. It is evident from the impugned Order that the appellants have not committed any fraud, suppression, or wilful mis-statement as the Commissioner has given specific finding that no evidence has been brought on record to suggest active involvement of the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates