Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous

Shri SL Agarwal and Others Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vapi

2015 (10) TMI 1230 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Imposition of penalties - Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 - improper credit on the CVD paid on inputs at the time of import - Held that:- In view of the settled proposition of law [2013 (12) TMI 749 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] for taking improper CENVAT credit on imported goods no penalty can be imposed upon individually under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No : E/10229-10231,/2013, E/10423,10504/2013 - Order No. A/10862-10866/2015 - Dated: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

M/s. Nitin Alloys Global Ltd., took CENVAT credit on certain documents without receipt of inputs. That the entire CENVAT credit of ₹ 16,60,129/- was paid by M/s. Nitin Alloys Global Ltd., alongwith interest and M/s. Nitin Alloys Global Ltd. has not filed any appeal again the said O.I.O No. 32/ADC/OA/VAPI/2011-12 Dated 23.01.2012. That penalty on the Respondents has been correctly imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Learned AR strongly defended the order passed by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case law that Director of a Company cannot be visited with a penalty for taking improper credit. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is imposition of penalties upon on the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 for taking improper credit on the CVD paid on inputs at the time of import. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that for taking CENVAT credit only penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gation against the appellant is that he intentionally allowed availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of bogus invoices issued by three registered dealers in a fraudulent manner. As such there is no allegation against the appellant that he had dealt with any excisable goods which he knew or had reason to believe were liable to confiscation. Under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, as the same stood during the period of dispute, penalty was imposable on any person who acquires possession or is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version