Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 269 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (6) TMI 269 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Penalty under Section 11AC - removal of non-excisable goods on payment of duty through cenvat credit - whether there is suppression of fact, mis-declaration, fraud, collusion etc? - Held that:- Appellant have debited the Cenvat Credit even though wrongly at the time of removal of non-excisable fabric, and the appellant has also paid additional equal amount in cash after issuance of show cause notice which they have not contested. - On careful reading .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ord does not show suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. - Thus the penalty under Section 11AC/Rule 15(2) is not imposable on the appellant, however there is no doubt that the appellant have contravened the provision. Therefore the penalty under Section 11A is set aside and the demand of Cenvat Credit, interest and penalty under Rule 27 are maintained. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. - Appeal No. E/1348/2010 - A/86931/16/SMB - Dated:- 3-3-2016 - SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of manmade fabrics, readymade garments and made ups falling under Chapters 54, 61 and 62 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They shifted their factory from Laxmi Industrial State, Penkar Pada, Mira Road (East) Gala No.7 Sarita Building, Prabhat Industrial Estate, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. The appellant while shifting the factory was having a Cenvat Credit balance of ₹ 5,62,355/- in their Cenvat Account, the appellant filed an application to the Deputy Commissioner .....

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 filed a refund claim on 20.12.2004 for ₹ 5,62,354/- the said refund claim was rejected on time bar as per the RG 23A Part-II and ER-1 Returns submitted to the Range Office as on 31.7.2004, the closing balance of the quantity of inputs was shown as NIL in the Input Stock Register and which has been continued to be shown on nil till 24.3.2005. The appellant purchased 184904 L. meters. of fabrics and recorded in their Input Stock Register, maintained in RG.23A Part-I register 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

ayable on the clearance of the said material, hence the appellant has wrongly utilized the Cenvat Credit lying in the cenvat account. Accordingly, it was proposed to be recovered under Rule 14 and the penalty was also proposed under Rule 15 and also under Rule 27 of the Rule. On adjudication, the demand of ₹ 5,62,107/- was confirmed for a recovery under Rule 14, and the same was appropriated as the appellant have paid the said amount on 21.09.2005 and 19.1.2006, demand of interest was also .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

time of clearance of the fabrics they have already debited the Cenvat Credit, therefore further recovery could not have been made, this will amount to double recovery of the same amount. However, the appellant is not contesting the demand as in addition to their debit entry in their Cenvat account while removing the non-excisable goods also paid the same amount in cash along with interest. The appellant is only contesting the penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. He submits that 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

been imposed. He further submits that the show cause notice has not explicitly made the charges of any ingredients such as suppression of fact, mis-declaration, fraud, collusion etc. for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Rule. Moreover, the show cause notice proposed the penalty only under Rule 15 without mention of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the rule. For this reason also equal penalty under Rule 15(2) was wrongly imposed. He submits that in view of various Supreme Court judgments .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India -1996 (88) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) (iii) Kaur & Singh Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi-1997 (94) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) 4. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that for invoking the penal provision under Section 11AC or Rule 15(2), the period of one year is not relevant, the penalty provision under Section 11AC is independent proviso to S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.K. Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1978 (2) E.L.T. J355 (S.C.)It was held that wrong mention or non-mention or Rule or Section will not vitiate the show cause notice. He submits that the appellant has willfully intended to wrongly utilize the Cenvat Credit therefore the penalty under Section 11AC/Rule 15(2) was correctly and legally imposed on the appellant. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. The only issue to be decided by me is whether the appellant is liable .....

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