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 (8) TMI 689

ly to the sister unit of the appellant. In a plethora of decisions, higher appellate forums have consistently held that in such situations there would be revenue neutrality, since even if the credit had been reversed or the duty paid, the sister unit would well have been able to take the same amount as input credit. - The ingredients attracting imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act are not present in this case - the imposition of equal penalty of ₹ 2,85,27,320/- under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act, cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. - As this submission only relates to the method and manner of calculation of interest, the matter is remanded to the adjudicatin .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

paid up an amount of ₹ 2,56,89,772/- towards wrongly availed credit and an amount of ₹ 89,88,471/- towards interest liability. 1.2 In adjudication, the Commissioner vide the impugned Order dt. 15.10.2012 confirmed the proposal for demand of duty with interest, appropriated the amounts already paid and also imposed equal penalty amount of ₹ 2,85,27,320/- under Rule 15 of C.C.R. 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 1.3 In the grounds of appeal, the appellants have submitted that no interest can be levied on the duty amount on account of revenue neutrality. Interest rate @18% has been charged for the entire period of demand while it should have been @13% prior to 01. .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

E.L.T. 490 (S.C.)] C.C.E. Vs. Jamshedpur Beverages [2007(214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)] India Pistons Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. [2008(221) E.L.T. 295 (Tri. - Chen.) IOC Vs. C.C.E. [2010(262) E.L.T. 751 (Tri. - Mum.)] Daman Ganga Board Mills P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. [2012(276) E.L.T. 532 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] C.C.E. & C. Vs. Mayank Electra Ltd. [2009(234) E.L.T. 358 (T)] C.C.E. Vs. Subray Catal Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2010(261)E.L.T. 1170 (T)] Sudhir Paper Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. [2010(259) E.L.T. 289] 3.1 On the other hand, Ld. AR Ms. Usha Devi opposed the appeal. She submits that the plea of inadvertence cannot be taken in this case since on reversal of SAD component has continued for more than five years. 3.2 She also submits that there cannot be any revenue neutrality in .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

behalf of assessee, ld. counsel Shri M. Karthikeyan submitted that the assessee is not contesting the liability and would like to submit only on the ground that entire transaction would give rise to a revenue-neutral situation. Thus SCN issued beyond the normal period is not sustainable. He submitted that even if the duty has to be paid by appellant as alleged in the SCN, their sister concern would be able to take credit. Ld. counsel also relied upon the judgment reported as Commissioner Vs Special Steel Ltd. - 2016 (334) ELT A123 (SC) where the Hon'ble Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal wherein department appeal was dismissed on the ground of revenue-neutrality since the duty paid on the goods cleared to sister unit wa .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ils of the impugned clearances were not indicated therein. In fact, from the facts on record, the aberration came to light only from the details provided by appellant in the ER-1 returns and the corresponding invoices relating to the clearances. 5.5 It is also noted that appellant had been audited at least on four occasions, by the Internal Audit between 2007 and 2010, and on three occasions by CERA Audit between 2007 and 2009. 5.6 Taking into account all these factors, we find that the ingredients attracting imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act are not present in this case. In the event, we hold that the imposition of equal penalty of ₹ 2,85,27,320/- under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC .....

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 ||