Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Amba Poly Crome (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh II

2015 (10) TMI 1552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- In the show cause notice itself allegation against the appellant is that they have taken the excess Cenvat credit wrongly. If appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly, it means that he have taken the cenvat credit by mistake not with intention to take inadmissible cenvat credit. When show cause notice itself is alleging that appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly and same has been supported by earlier audit. When the facts of wrong ava .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

taken the cenvat credit by mistake. In these circumstances, penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act is not imposable. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 57964 of 2013-(SM) - Dated:- 22-5-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri Prabhat Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms Ranjana Jha, AR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e notice was issued on 18.2.2011 to allege that during the period June, 2007 to April, 2009, the appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly and not as per formula prescribed under Rule 3(7) of Rules. The proceedings were initiated by way of show cause notice. Matter was adjudicated and excess cenvat credit availed by the appellant was denied and Cenvat credit which is within the period of limitation was paid by the appellant and same was appropriated in demand for the later period is confirmed al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

10 for the audited period from January, 2008 to February, 2010. The Central Excise Audit team Group infact pointed out to the appellant that they have taken Cenvat credit as per formula prescribed under Rule 3(7) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. The appellant immediately on pointing out, reversed the Cenvat credit of ₹ 5,67,730/- which was pertaining to the period of limitation but show cause notice was issued by invoking extended period of limitation. 4. Therefore, extended period of limitat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

a letter to the department and call a report and therefore the matter be adjourned. She further submits that appellant has supplied the record which is to be examined. Therefore same cannot be examined at this stage. On merits, she submits that as the appellant was aware that he is not entitled to take cenvat credit fully as per formula prescribed under Rule 3(7) of CCR, 2004. Therefore they have taken inadmissible cenvat credit. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. On last date .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t means that he have taken the cenvat credit by mistake not with intention to take inadmissible cenvat credit. When show cause notice itself is alleging that appellant has taken cenvat credit wrongly and same has been supported by earlier audit. When the facts of wrong availment of credit was pointed out to the appellant they reversed the excess cenvat credit availe by them. In these circumstances, I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable relying on the decision of Tribunal in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the department at the premises of the respondents. From the impugned order, we take note of that the respondents took defence before the lower appellate authority that the internal audit was conducted by the department frequently in their premises and the audit party never raised any objection for non-inclusion of amortized cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value of the goods cleared by them. It is also evident from the audit report brought on record by the lower appellate authority that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version