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

Latest Cases

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 →

2019 (8) TMI 491

..... t in excess of the percentage envisaged in Rule 6(3)(c) - suppression of facts - HELD THAT:- The appellant is disputing the quantification from the very beginning while filing the reply to the show-cause notice itself. Further, the appellant has reversed the amount of ₹ 11,37,010/- along with interest of ₹ 2,18,128/- and informed the department. The previous authority after observing the reversal along with interest still held that the appellant was liable to reverse ₹ 14,21,259/-. This finding recorded by the previous authority as well as on remand by the adjudicating authority is factually incorrect and as per the detailed quantification, the appellant was required to reverse ₹ 11,37,010/-, which was reversed by th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... n Rule 6(3)(c) and had suppressed the said fact from the Department. The show-cause notice required the appellant to show-cause as to why excess CENVAT Credit of ₹ 78,45,806/- as per the Annexure to the notice being the CENVAT credit utilized for payment of service tax in contravention of Rule 6(3)(c) of CENVAT credit Rules should not be disallowed and recovered under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; besides proposing to impose penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act and levy of interest. Appellant contested the show-cause notice by filing the detailed reply. Further on 20.10.2008, the Additional Commissioner issued show-cause notice for the period from April 2007 t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... original authority to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order. On remand, the adjudicating authority by the impugned order has recorded the finding in para 33.2 of the impugned order that appellant has not annexed any worksheet to dispute the quantification of ₹ 14,21,259/- nor they have questioned the quantification and that quantification of ₹ 14,21,259/- stands established in view of the facts at para 13 of the Order-in-Original No.25/2010 and was not in dispute anymore; and accordingly confirmed the said demand and appropriated a sum of ₹ 11,37,010/- already paid by the appellant and also appropriated the payment of interest of ₹ 2,18,128/- already paid by the appellant. The adjudicating authority dropped the .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... perintendent. He further submitted that the appellant had filed the detailed calculation vide letter on 29.10.2009 which is received by the department and the copy of the same is annexed with this appeal also, which clearly indicate that the quantification of calculation as ₹ 11,37,010/- was reversed or paid by the appellant with interest. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has not seen the worksheets and without application of mind has again held that the appellant has not disputed the quantification of ₹ 14,21,259/- and also not enclosed any worksheets, which is factually incorrect. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has recorded a wrong finding that the appellant did not dispute the quantif .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... to reverse ₹ 14,21,259/-. This finding recorded by the previous authority as well as on remand by the adjudicating authority is factually incorrect and as per the detailed quantification, the appellant was required to reverse ₹ 11,37,010/-, which was reversed by them along with interest. Further, I find that the Tribunal vide its order dated 25.7.2017 remanded the matter on the allegation that as per the claim of the assessee, they are liable to pay approximately ₹ 11.37 lakhs while the adjudicating authority has confirmed approximately ₹ 14.21 lakh. Further, I note that the finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant have not annexed any worksheet to dispute the quantification and therefore, the quantif .....

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 ||