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

2020 (2) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... balance in its account and also produced a Chartered Accountant certificate for the same. Based on the applicable provisions under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, as was in force during the period from April 2012 to March 2013, It is held that the Appellant is not required to pay any interest. Thus, since the appellant had sufficient credit balances, in any case, there would be no loss of Revenue to the exchequer. Therefore, the imposition of interest in the present proceedings cannot sustain and hence, the same is set aside. Appeal disposed off. - Excise Appeal No.78564 of 2018, Excise Appeal No.78602 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75200-75201/2020 - Dated:- 4-2-2020 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Shri Ankit Kanodia, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant/Assessee Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent/Revenue ORDER The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cold rolling of thick stainless sheets, slitting in small sizes, making stainless pipes etc. classifiable under chapter 73049000 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986). A show cause notice dated 27.02.2017 was issued alleging contravention of provisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o 31st March, 2018 along with Electronic Credit Ledger from the GST Portal and Input Ledger from the Unaudited Books of Accounts for the Financial Year 2017-18 and other relevant records as contained in the Statement of selected Financial Data for the period Mar, 2018 in respect to M/s.Anmol Stainless Private Limited having Registered Office at 229 AJC Bose Road, Cresent Tower, 6th Floor, Kolkata- 700020. On the basis of relevant records and other information provided to us and on the basis of other supporting document we hereby confirm that ₹ 11,06,691/- has not being taken as Transitional Input Tax Credit carried forward from the ER-1 Return for the month of June 2018 under section 140(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 3. It is the submission of the learned Chartered Accountant that the above Chartered Accountant s Certificate is very clear on the aspect that the amount of ₹ 11,06,691/- has been taken by the appellant and has been reversed on 30.06.2017 in the books of accounts. The journal voucher of that entry was also produced before both the lower authorities. Accordingly, he argued that the demand to the extent of ₹ 11,06,691/- is not tenab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... perused the appeal records. 7. The short issue that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is with respect to whether the Appellant has already reversed the amount of ₹ 11,06,691/- as Cenvat credit or not by making an entry in the books of accounts on 30/06/2017 and thereby reducing the amount of Cenvat credit to be transferred in TRAN 1 form in GST. On perusal of the entire case records, it is seen that the Appellant has done the said reversal in the books of accounts and has thereby not carried the said Cenvat credit into GST regime. Further, the GST regime has been introduced w.e.f. 01/07/2017. Thus in my considered view, there is no further reversal required in the matter. Hence the demand to the extent of ₹ 11,06,691/- as confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside. 8. Now the question that remains to be decided is whether interest is payable by the appellant. I find that the Appellant has asserted that it had sufficient credit balance in its account and also produced a Chartered Accountant certificate for the same. Based on the applicable provisions under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, as was in force during the period fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (Supra) has been further followed by the Karnataka High Court in the following cases: CCE, Bangalore vs. Pearl Insulation Ltd. 2012 (281) ELT 192 (Kar) CCE, Bangalore vs. Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd. 2012 (28) STR 214 (Kar) 10. Relying on the above decisions, the Hon ble Madras High Court in CCE vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad) has observed that :- 11. It is an admitted fact that Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as been subsequently amended, wherein it has been clearly stated as taken and utilised . Therefore, it is quite clear that mere taking itself would not compel the assessee to pay interest as well as penalty. Further, as pointed out earlier, the subsequent amendment has given befitting answer to all doubts existed earlier. Since, the subsequent amendment has cleared all doubts existed earlier in respect of Rule 14 of the said Rules, it is needless to say that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department is erroneous, whereas the argument advanced on the side of the respondent is really having merit and the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are not having substance and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nterest is chargeable. The Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III v. Maruti Udyog Limited, reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 173 (P & H) has held that the Assessee is not liable to pay interest as the credit was only taken as an entry in the Modvat record and was not in fact utilized. Against the above decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. CC3915/2007 filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III has been rejected by the Apex Court on 14-5-2007 [2007 (214) E.L.T. A50 (S.C.)]. The decisions cited by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel are distinguishable and do not apply to the facts of the present case. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. SKF India Ltd. (supra) it has been held that on revision of prices retrospectively invoices were issued and differential duty was paid. It has also been held by the Apex Court that payment of differential duty clearly falls under Section 11A(2B) of the Act and hence interest is chargeable under Section 11AB of the Act. Similar view has been taken in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

|| 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.
|| Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||