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. Tamilnadu Petroproducts ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Penalty - Reversal of CENVAT credit - appellant after extraction of normal paraffin from the imported kerosene returned the kerosene after such process, to M/s. CPCL - concessional rate of duty under N/N. 26/99-Cus. dated 28.2.1999 - Held that: - There could be no ground of bona fide belief on such action when they have availed knowingly the CENVAT credit on the CVD paid on kerosene. The CENVAT Credit Rules did not permit for any ambiguity in interpreting the provisions when the inputs are clear .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tificate - penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/942/2006 - Final Order No. 42015 / 2017 - Dated:- 11-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member ( Technical ) Ms. S. Vishnupriya, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) for which kerosene is the primary raw material. They used imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th the permission of the department, certain dispute arose which is the subject matter of this appeal. The appellant after extraction of normal paraffin from the imported kerosene returned the kerosene after such process, to M/s. CPCL. Initially at the time of procurement of kerosene, they have taken CENVAT credit on the central excise duty / CVD paid on the same. The dispute in the present case is relating to their liability to reverse such credit when the kerosene is removed to M/s. CPCL. In t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g with interest and 25% of amount as penalty. Both Revenue as well as the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order decided the appeals and requantified the amount to be reversed to ₹ 27,94,723/-. Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the Revenue that the adjudicating authority has erred in reducing the penalty to 25% as the appellant have not paid the quantified amount along with interest and also with the said reduced penalty, within 30 days of the origin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

here can be no case of suppression, fraud or collusion etc. in the present proceedings. She accordingly prayed for waiver of penalty as they have reversed the credit even before issue of show cause notice. 4. The ld. AR opposes the submission of the appellant. He submitted that the appellants were fully aware of the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules. They have availed credit on kerosene and have not reversed the said credit when the kerosene was cleared as such to M/s. CPCL. There is no ambiguit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

However, on the imposition of penalty, we note the following observation in the show cause notice:- 5. Whereas it appears that investigation conducted with the TPL officials attached to Quality Control, Process engineering and production department were enquired; and statements revealed that M/s. TPL appears to have willfully misstated the facts relating to the consumptions of imported SKO, by clearing more quantity as consumed to earn more concessions even when they were aware of the fact that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

processed imported kerosene; and have paid appropriate duty on the same; whereas in reality they have cleared part of the imported processed kerosene to M/s. CPCL without payment of duty in violation of the CENVAT credit rules punishable under proviso to the said Rules. 7. Against the above submission, the contention of the appellant is that they themselves had certain difficulty in quantifying the imported kerosene cleared to M/s. CPCL. This is because of mixed storage in a common facility. In .....

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
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| 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