M\/s. Utkarsh India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Haldia
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1377 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/78043\/2018 – FO\/76968\/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
\nShri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant (s)
\nShri A.K. Biswas, Suptd. (AR) the Respondent (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P.K. Choudhary
\nThis appeal is listed for admission today. After hearing both sides and despite the amount involved in this case being less than Rs. 2.00 lakhs, the appellant intends to contest the issue on merit, which is admitted and since the issue lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of both sides the same is taken up for disposal.
\n2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Pole Black Pipe, G.I. Pipe, S.T. Pole Accessories, G.I. H.M. Pole, G.I. Tower, PVC\/SWR Pipe & Fittings, Hand Pump etc. classifiable under Chapter 73,39 and 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Ta<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n present appeal before this Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n n as the same was pointed out by the department, much before the issuance of the show cause notice, therefore, no penalty is attracted in this case in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Utkarsh India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, HaldiaCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 1377 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 20-11-2018Appeal No. E\/78043\/2018 – FO\/76968\/2018Central ExciseShri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd. (AR) the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary This appeal is … Continue reading “M\/s. Utkarsh India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST, Haldia”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15213\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the entire amount of cenvat credit alleged to have irregularly availed, was already reversed in the month of August, 2012 and the same was duly reflected in their ER I Returns. Subsequently, the interest amounting to Rs. 18,552\/- was also paid vide Challan Sl.No.00053470609201205144 dated 06.09.2012. I find from the records that this fact has been mentioned in the show cause notice dated 11.01.2013. Ld. Advocate further submits that he is only challenging the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Tribunal since the appellant had already reversed the credit taken by them and have also paid the interest thereon. I find from the records that the said credit was adjusted before issuance of the show cause notice and this fact also finds mention in the show cause notice itself. Hence, there <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n8. I find that the cenvat credit taken by the appellant was reversed much before issuance of the show cause notice and the same has already been appropriated by the adjudicating authority. Though there is allegation in the show cause notice regarding suppression, but it has not been specifically explained in the show cause notice as well as in the adjudication order as to how the intent to evade payment of the Central Excise duty is established taking into consideration that the appellant is subjected to periodical audit by the department and the documents on the basis of which credit has been taken was available for inspection of the audit.
\n9. In view of the above discussions and relied upon judicial decisions, it is held that penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n