9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ORDER PER: P.V. SUBBA RAO. 1. None appeared on behalf of the appellant despite the matter being listed. It is seen from the records that the appellant had not been represented during the previous hearings also. Heard the learned departmental representative and perused the records of the case and proceed to decide the matter on merits. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpose a penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 read with section 11AC. The appellant had not disputed the fact that they had availed Cenvat credit twice on the same invoice and also had short paid Cenvat credit on capital goods removed after being put to use. However, they contended that they have reversed the aforesaid amounts on being brought to their notice by the department. Therefore, they arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit account. 4. Learned departmental representative supports the impugned order and argues that it is not in doubt that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit twice on the same invoice which was in complete violation of any provisions of CCR, 2004. This would have gone unnoticed if there was not an audit by the department. This shows that the appellant had the intention to evade ineligible Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed Cenvat credit twice in the same invoice. It is not the case where one could have a doubt about the admissibility of such Cenvat credit. Evidently, nobody can legitimately claim Cenvat credit twice on one invoice. Similarly, with respect to the capital goods removed after use, they have reversed inadequate amount of Cenvat credit which remains undisputed. In this factual matrix, I find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
