9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the date of visit of the Audit officers. It has been correctly held by the first appellate authority that if certain invoices were left out for which credit was not taken earlier then the same can be taken only as per the prescribed procedures and not on any date as per appellant s choice by modifying the records at will. Appeal filed by the appellant with respect to demand of ₹ 4,36,780/- along with interest is therefore, rejected. So far as remaining amount of demand of ₹ 5,80,856/- is concerned, it is observed that appellant gave wrong figures of ₹ 29,86,623/- as cenvat utilisation in the month of April 2004 instead of actual utilisation of ₹ 24,05,767/-. It is observed from the case records that this aspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 15.7.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Vadodara. Under this OIA dated 15.7.2013 Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld in to the OIO No. 07/Dem/ST/JC/D-III/2012 dated 24.9.2012 passed by the Adjudicating authority. 2. Shri D.R. Bhatt (Chartered Accountant) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that out of total confirmed demand of ₹ 10,20,790/- amount of ₹ 4,36,718/- was available to them as CENVAT credit for which cenvatable documents were existing with the appellant during the relevant period on which credit was not taken by the time audit was undertaken. That this aspect was clearly brought out in their reply dated 07.7.2012 to the show cause notice. That a revised ST-3 return was also filed by the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the visit of the Audit officers. That this aspect has been properly elaborated by the first appellate authority in Para 10 of the OIA dated 15.7.2013. That penalties have been correctly imposed upon the appellant by the lower authorities and accordingly defended the orders passed by them. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is observed that an amount of ₹ 4,36,780/-, out of the total amount demanded by the Revenue has been adjusted by the appellant by taking CENVAT credit on an earlier date, on the basis of some cenvatable documents for which no credit was taken by the appellant when the CENVAT register was verified by the visiting audit officers. Appellant cannot take cenvat credit in the CENVAT account on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is not correct. This aspect of the demand is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for reconciliation after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 6. So far as imposition of penalties upon the appellant are concerned, it is observed that appellant was of the bonafide belief that CENVAT credit could be taken on an earlier date also where cenvatable documents were available with them. In the case of clandestine removal cases are admissible CENVAT credit is abated from the total demand even at the appellate stage. Further demand of ₹ 5,80,856/- is with respect to reconciliation of figures regarding taking of cenvatable credit. On the basis of above factual matrix, penalties under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
