9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid by the supplier and the credit admissible? 2) Whether CENVAT can be done when SCN issued to M/s. BPCL does not mention any suppression of fact or willful mis-representation with intent to evade payment of duty for application of Rule 4(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002? 3) Whether the adjudicating authority, having jurisdiction over purchaser of inputs, can deny CENVAT credit availed on the strength of supplementary invoices towards payment of differential excise duty when there is a specific mention in the Order-in-Original that penalty under section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB cannot be imposed as there is no suppression of facts? 2 Though the order passed by this Court on 16th January, 2006 indicates that there is si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. She submits that on the strength of the supplementary invoices issued by M/s. BPCL, cenvat credit was availed of by the present assessee. However, that was without a disclosure that M/s. BPCL the supplier of the inputs was visited with the penalty under Rule 173 Q. That would denote that the supplier M/s. BPCL cleared the goods with an intent to evade payment of duty. In these circumstances, the cenvat credit availed of was liable to be reversed and that is how the show cause cum demand notice to the assessee was rightly confirmed. The Tribunal has interfered with the same erroneously. The Tribunal proceeds on the footing that in the orders passed on adjudication and against M/s. BPCL, there is no finding that M/s. BPCL had made any wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of duty. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that in the adjudication against the present assessee, the adjudicating authority could not have speculated about what the case against M/s. BPCL was, and what are the findings rendered against them. They ought to have been accepted and for what they are and once they do not contain any finding of the above nature, then, Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, was not attracted. That was not attracted to the given facts and circumstances. The Tribunal rightly held that by mere imposition of penalty under Rule 173 Q, the inferences drawn by the adjudicating authority, cannot be sustained. Those were mere conjectures and surmises on the part of the adjudicating authority. Since the ingredi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
