2019 (2) TMI 1481 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Imposition of penalty – invocation of provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act – Held that:- It is an admitted fact on record that based on the Books of Accounts maintained by the appellant, the Central Excise Officers observed that the discrepancies regarding availment of irregular credit. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellant had suppressed such facts regarding availment of CENVAT Credit, which were made known to the department through external sources or otherwise – Admittedly, there is no element of suppression, mis-statement, fraud etc, on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government revenue. Therefore, the department has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 11A(4) of the Act, for issuance of show-cause notice and confirmation of the adjudged demand – penalty set aside – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No. E/88036/2018 – A/85363/2019 – Dated:- 20-2-2019 – Mr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
1,85,104/- should not be demanded and recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter was adjudicated by order dated 10.02.2017, wherein the original authority had confirmed the Cenvat demand of ₹ 1,85,104/- along with interest and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. On appeal against the adjudication order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 19.04.2018 has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demand. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The authorized representative appearing for the appellant submits that due to inadvertence, CENVAT Credit was wrongly taken by the appellant and on detection of such mistake by the audit wing, such irregularly availed CENVAT Credit was reversed and due intimation of such effect was fil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
for Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. In this case, the appellant is not contesting the Cenvat demand along with interest confirmed against it. The scope of grounds of appeal is limited only for consideration of the issue whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, can the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act be invoked for imposition of penalty. 6. It is an admitted fact on record that based on the Books of Accounts maintained by the appellant, the Central Excise Officers observed that the discrepancies regarding availment of irregular credit. It is not the case of Revenue that the appellant had suppressed such facts regarding availment of CENVAT Credit, which were made known to the department through external sources or otherwise. Since the adjudged demand was proposed for recovery based on records maintained by the appellant, the demand notice should have been
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =