Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 868 - CESTAT NEW DELHILevy of penalty - Recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit - trading activity as well as taxable service - non-maintenance of separate records - rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) - HELD THAT:- There is no denial for the fact that amount for which the demand has been confirmed is an amount of reversed Cenvat Credit and that the same was reversed much prior the issuance of Show Cause Notice. The admitted facts there seems no occasion for imposition of penalty. Further, it is observed that though the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 11 has held the suppression of facts on part of the appellant, While ordering imposition of penalty but it is also observed that in para 9 of the order itself the findings of Commissioner are as follows:- (i) There is no need to maintain separate accounts w.e.f 01.04.2016. (ii) The appellant and 2/3 options during the impugned period; that they have admittedly availed the option available under Rule 6 (3) (ii) read with rule 6 (3A). (iii) The competent officer could allow a manufacturer/provider of output service who failed to exercise the option under Rule 6 (3) to follow the procedure and pay the amount referred to in Rule 6 (3) (ii) alongwith interest. The provisions of section 11AC of CEA are inapplicable to the given set of circumstances as those can be relied only in case of short payment/non-payment of the duty. Admittedly present is not the case of short payment/non-payment of duty - the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly imposed penalty upon the appellant. Appeal allowed in part.
|