TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd when in pursuance of their request for recredit, the same had been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20-4-2009 just because the appellant had taken the recredit on their own on 31-3-2009, there would be no justification for imposition of penalty. When the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20-4-2009 had permitted the recredit of ₹ 9,80,354/- this credit would be treated as available for the month of March, 2009 and hence there would be no excess utilization of credit during that month. In view of this, the cenvat credit demand and penalty does not appear to be sustainable - Stay granted. - E/594/2012 - Stay Order No. 1544/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 5-9-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President and Shri Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is amount. On 21-1-2009 they wrote to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that since the amount has been reversed under Rule 6(3)(b) by mistake through Cenvat credit, they would recredit this amount. Accordingly, on 31-3-2009, the appellant took the recredit of ₹ 9,80,354/-. Subsequently, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner also vide order dated 20-4-2009 formally allowed the recredit. However, taking into account suo motu credit of this amount on 31-3-2009, he imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant. Besides this, he also confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,37,034/- along with interest on the ground that on account of wrongly taken suo motu credit of ₹ 9,80,354/- for the month of March, 2009, there has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly when the recredit has been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, the allegation of excess utilization of Cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 2,37,034/- in the month of March, 2009 would not be sustainable; that the appellant have a strong prima facie case and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri R.K. Verma, ld. AR for the Revenue, opposed the stay application and emphasized that the appellant was not allowed to take suo motu credit even if they may be eligible for recredit and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order upholding the Cenvat credit demand and imposition of penalty. 5. We have cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
