TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment for the re-credit and when in pursuance of their request for re-credit, the same had been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.04.2009 just because the appellant had taken the re-credit on their own on 31.03.2008, there would be no justification for imposition of penalty when the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.04.2009 had permitted the re-credit of ₹ 9,80,354/- this credit would be treated as available for the month 2009 and hence there would be no excess utilization of credit during that month. In view of this, the cenvat credit demand and penalty does not appear to be sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/594/2012 - Final Order No. 61278/2016 - Dated:- 31-8-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt. On 21.01.2009 they wrote to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner that since the amount has been reversed under Rule 6(3)(b) by mistake through cenvat credit, they would re-credit this amount. Accordingly, on 31.03.2009, the appellant took the re-credit of ₹ 9,80,354/-. Subsequently, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner also vide order dated 20.04.2009 formally allowed the re-credit. However, taking into account suo moto credit of this amount on 31.03.2009, he imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant. Besides this, he also confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,37,034/- along with interest on the ground that on account of wrongly taken suo moto credit of ₹ 9,80,354/- for the month of March 2009, there has been e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the re-credit has been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, the allegation of excess utilization of cenvat to the tune of ₹ 2,37,034/- in the month of March 2009 would not be sustainable; that the appellant have a strong prima facie case and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived and recovery thereof be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri. R.K. Verma, Id. AR for the Revenue, opposed the stay application and emphasized that the appellant was not allowed to take suo motu credit even if they may be eligible for re credit and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order upholding. the cenvat credit demand and imposition of penalty. 5. We have considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
