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 Next →

M/s. Howrah Gases Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur

2016 (5) TMI 997 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Recovery of interest - excess inadmissible Cenvat Credit inappropriately taken was reversed as soon as issue brought to the notice. Also no interest is payable as Cenvat Credit Rules prevalent at the relevant time never prescribed payment of interest - Held that:- it was observed by the department that Appellant has taken credit on Ingot Moulds in the very first year to the extent of 100% when as per Rule-4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules credit was required to be taken in the first year to the exten .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted out by the department. Appellant has, therefore, utilized the amount of ₹ 1,44,669/- from the date of taking Cenvat Credit till it was reversed/paid. This act of utilizing this amount without the authority of law, will attract interest of ₹ 6,759/- as calculated by the Adjudicating Authority.

Imposition of penalty - Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- for violation of the Cenvat Credit Rules and taking excess credit in violation of Cenvat Credit p .....

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 Central Excise (Appeals-III), Kolkata as First Appellate Authority. Under this Order-in-Appeal the First Appellate Authority has disallowed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 1,44,669/- along with interest and also upheld imposition of penalty upon the Appellant. 2. Sri B.N.Chattopadhyay, Consultant appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that Appellant is not contesting the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on merit. It was his case that Cenvat Credit on Ingot Moulds to the extent of 100% in the ve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was reversed, therefore, penalty imposed is not justified. He relied upon the case law of CCE, Mumbai-II vs. FIAT India Pvt. Ltd.[2009 (92) RLT 481 (CESTAT-Mum) and CCE, Rohtak vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd.[2007(215) E.L.T.423 (Tri.-Del.)] 3. Sri A.Roy, Suptd.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that interest on improperly taken credit is chargeable from the date of taking excess credit to the date of payment as quantified in the adjudication order. That penalty upon the Appe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he manufacture of sponge iron falling under Chapter-72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period July, 2005 to October, 2005 it was observed by the department that Appellant has taken credit on Ingot Moulds in the very first year to the extent of 100% when as per Rule-4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules credit was required to be taken in the first year to the extent of 50% of the total credit admissible on capital goods. Appellant paid the excess credit taken but a .....

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