9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax, Ranchi as to why a total amount of Rs. 22,27,500/- comprising of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 21,83,822/-, Education Cess to the tune of Rs. 43,678/- be not recovered under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the duty amount of Rs. 7,14,000/- already reversed should not be appropriated. Petitioner company was asked to reply as to why the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 70,720/- with education cess to the tune of Rs. 1,415/- totaling Rs. 72,135/- should not be recovered under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the duty amount of Rs. 72,135/- already reversed should not be appropriated. It was also asked to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii) I disallow the Cenvat Credit of duty Rs. 70,720/- (Rupees Seventy thousand seven hundred twenty only) and Education Cess Rs. 1,415/- (Rupees one thousand four hundred fifteen only), total Rs. 72,135/- (Rupees Seventy-two thousand one hundred thirty-five only) and order for recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iii) I confirm the recovery of interest on the confirmed amount mentioned at Sl.No.(i) and Sl.No.(ii) above under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (iv) I impose penalty of Rs. 22,99,635/- (Rs. Twenty Two Lakh Ninety nine thousand Six Hundred Thirty Five only) under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 2017 in the following manner :- "The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Raj Steel & Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal, submitted that they have filed an application for exempting them from depositing the statutory pre-deposit. I find that there is no provisions for exempting the mandatory pre-deposit. It is seen that both the appellants filed stay application for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit. As there is no provision for waiver of mandatory pre- deposit, the stay applications are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 2. The other appellants, filed appeals against imposition of penalty of Rs. 22,99,635/- on each of the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the assessee availed Cenvat Credit against 51 (fifty one) fake invoices issued by the said dealer. I find that the appellants are Directors of the assessee company and attempted to shift their responsibility on each other on various pretexts. Nobody has come out with clear facts of the case. The demand was raised in respect of the goods for evasion of duty where the appellants were involved. And therefore, the imposition of penalty is warranted. 4. However, I agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel that the quantum of penalties are excessive. It is noted that the penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit was imposed upon the assessee. In such a situation, imposition of penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit on the Directors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une of Rs. 9,19,854/- giving tax reliefs in demand up to 60%. Now, the writ petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the determination of tax dues of Rs. 9,19,854/- vide Form No. SVLDRS-2 dated 7.1.2020 (Annexure-16) and Form No.SVLDRS-3 dated 10.2.2020 (Annexure-18). It has also prayed for quashing of communication/order dated 23.3.2020 (Annexure-21) issued under the signature of Joint Commissioner, Member, Designated Committee, Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, whereby the determination made vide Form No.SVLDRS-3 dated 10.2.2020 (Annexure-17) has been upheld. Petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Members of the Designated Committee, Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme to accept the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to pay Rs. 22,99,635/- and once the order has attained finality till the stage of Tribunal, there is no question of any further interference in the demand. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, that would amount to interfering in the order which has attained finality. The petitioner has to go strictly by the provisions of the scheme and there is no further scope of indicating as to what was already deposited against or in connection with the demand or prior to the demand in relation to which demand of Rs. 22,99,635/- was raised. This Court fully agrees with the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents and is also of a considered view that once a demand raised by the authority amounting to Rs. 22,99,635/- has attained f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
