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 →

Canara Bank Versus Commissioner of Service Tax Bangalore

2016 (3) TMI 712 - CESTAT BANGALORE

Liability of Interest - Cenvat Credit wrongly taken for the period April 2009 to November 2009 - Held that:- as the Cenvat Credit has wrongly taken/claimed by the appellant for the said period, trhe interest become payable under provisions of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with provisions of Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994 to be paid by the appellant.

Imposition of penalty - Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules - Cenvat Credit wrongly taken for the period April 2009 to Nove .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s do take place for which the appellant is not to be punished by imposing the penalties. Therefore, by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court], the penalty under Rule 15 ibid is not imposable.

Eligibility of Cenvat Credit - Taken twice on same set of documents - Appellant pleaded that that they have seven documents against eight documents to prove correctness of the credit and the 8 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Smt Lalitha Rameswaran, CA For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Saxena, DR ORDER PER: ASHOK K. ARYA Heard both sides in detail. 2. The appellant viz. M/s. Canara Bank, a public sector bank has been charged with availment of irregular cenvat credit on various counts. The chart given by the appellant in the written submissions on page 1 is given below: Sl. No. Nature of Irregularity Amount (in Rs.) 1 Credit availed in respect of tax paid u/s 66 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

above table is in respect of input services received from abroad and service tax paid on reverse charge basis; in this regard service tax was paid in the month of November 2009 though by mistake they took the cenvat credit in the month of April 2009. 3.1. Regarding the amounts mentioned at Sl. No. 2, 3, 4 of the table above ₹ 7,17,364/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty Four only), ₹ 25,024/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand and Twenty Four only) and ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

loyees working in Cenvat department. She pleads that they deserve to be given benefit of non-imposition of penalty under the provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act 1994. 3.2. In respect of cenvat credit amount (at Sl. No. 5 of the table) of ₹ 6,85,310/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) allegedly taken more than once on the same set of documents, the learned CA is pleading that they have seven documents against eight documents to prove correctness of the 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

imposed a penalty of ₹ 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the alleged wrong credit availed in respect of service tax paid for the input services received from abroad (on reverse charge basis in the month of November 2009), though credit was taken in the month of April 2009. This equivalent penalty of ₹ 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and .....

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 payment of VAT, and water charges etc though they reversed the same along with interest. Further for the period of about seven months there was availment of wrong cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) against which the appellant has not paid interest even till now; therefore, the appellant does not seem to deserve any leniency regarding imposition of penalty. 5. After considering the full facts on record .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules for the above wrongly taken cenvat credit, the facts indicate that for taking the cenvat credit there was no intention of the appellant to take it when it was not due. In fact it had become due to them, when they had paid the service tax in the month of November 2009; the said lapse has been explained by the appellant saying that the said services were received from abroad in their Mumbai 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

n record and the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (supra) and the provisions of Section 80(1) of Finance Act 1994 (as they existed then) penalty of ₹ 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules is hereby set aside. In this regard the following pronouncement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs .....

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