Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 654

the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Sangrur Agro Ltd, [2010 (2) TMI 438 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that section 11AC of the Act would be applicable only if there is an attempt to evade duty. Case relates to reversal of amount under Rule 6(3)(b) of the cenvat Credit Rule 2004 thus section 11AC is not applicable - penalty set aside - appeal allowed. - E/88009/2017 - A/85657/2018 - Dated:- 12-3-2018 - Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri Mihir Mehta, Advocate, for the appellant Shri D S Chauhan, Superintendent (AR), for respondent This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal MKK/29/RGD/APP/2017 dated 08/09/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Belapur. 2. Heard both the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

of Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is incorrect inasmuch as there was no suppression as they had always indicated in their monthly returns clearances of exempted goods; that they had filed an intimation in 2014 itself of the intention to manufacture exempted goods, that the penalty under Section 11AC is not imposable. The Il first appellate authority in the impugned order accepted the contention of the appellant and held that reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to the exempted goods is correct and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of verifying the claim of reversal of credit by the appellant, held penalty equivalent to 50% of the a .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ty amounting to 50% of the ineligible Cenvat Credit is required to be paid for the period from April 2013 to 14.05.2015, in accordance with the proviso to Section 11AC(1)(c) supra, as the details relating to the transaction, in question, were recorded in their record; and penalty amounting to 100% of the ineligible Cenvat Credit is required to be paid for the period from 15.05.2015 to September 2016, in accordance with Section of CEA, 1944. Therefore, 1 find that jurisdictional authority is required to calculate the ineligible Cenvat Credit taken for the period from April 2013 to 14.05.2015 and recover 50% of such Cenvat Credit amount as penalty for the said period and further calculate the differential duty and ineligible Cenvat Credit tak .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e excess credit availed by it. 3. The short question is whether the respondent is liable to pay penalty and interest on the excess amount claimed by it? The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have held that provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act are inapplicable as they relate only to short payment of duty, whereas the present case relates to reversal of the excess amount claimed by the respondent in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Apart from the above, a perusal of the language of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act shows that the same would be applicable only if in case where there is an attempt to evade duty. The present case relates to reversal of amount under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Cre .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||