TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against all accounting norms. In the absence of a valid clarification on such amount so want only taken by them, there is no basis on which they could claim innocence and therefore, there is no reason on my part to examine whether there were any bonafide grounds on their part in taking credit irregularly in excess of the eligible amount as per the documents. Penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/30671/2017 - A/31793/2017 - Dated:- 10-11-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) Shri G. Prahalad, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. [Order per: M. V. Ravindran.] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-EXCUS-00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s leniency from imposition of penalty for the amount which has been paid before issuance of the show cause notice. He relies upon the following decisions M/s Tata Advanced Materials Ltd., [2015 (322) ELT 540] and Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., [2013 (287) ELT 467]. 5. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated findings of the lower authorities. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that there is no dispute has to the fact that CENVAT credit has been availed twice over on the same documents during the period in question. The entire CENVAT credit, interest has been already paid by the appellant. The issue regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant is being contested in the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken credit of ₹ 1,09,854/-. In other 4 invoices, it is found that they had taken credit twice of the eligible amount by an equal entry. While taking credit second time for the same amount could at best be explained as an arithmetical error-though evidence to show bonafides had not been presented by them- the most noteworthy aspect of the appellant s failure is that they had taken credit amounts far in excess of what was available on record as eligible amount. I find that neither in the original proceedings nor in the appeal proceedings, the appellant has explained with any reasonable clarity as to how such credit came to be taken by them which act in my view was against all accounting norms. In the absence of a valid clarification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is also noted that vide the impugned order, the original authority had offered them the option of reduced penalty equivalent to 25% of such penalty imposed subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed under Section 11AC(1)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, in my considered view, the penalty ordered equal to the amount of irregular credit availed by the appellant is as per law in the circumstances of the case and findings of offence on record. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel reliance on the decisions of the Tribunal because of Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. and Indian F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
