GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 1552 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

envat credit wrongly, it means that they have 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 appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The show cause 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 .....

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 Group 4 for the period from 15.3.10 to 18.3.10 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 limita .....

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 appellant and submits that she has written 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 partie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f 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 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 inv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble or not on the basis of audit conducted by 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 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

allans and invoices on which M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. had supplied the moulds and dies to the respondents in free of cost on loan basis was on record during the course of audit before the audit party and the audit party did not take any objection that the respondents have not amortized the cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value of the parts cleared to M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. It is also on record that the statements of the respondents have been recorded in January, 1999 and a show-cause notice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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