9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 327 - AT - Central ExciseRefund - cenvat credit reversed at the instance of audit party - Subsequently, they filed a refund claim of the same on the ground that no notice stand issued by the Revenue. - The claim was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the appellant having accepted their duty liability, there was no need of any show cause notice. - held that - there was no dispute on the said reversal made by the appellant, nor such reversal made by the appellant under protest, the appellant can be said to have accepted their duty liability and discharged the same in response to the objections made by the audit under the provisions of Section 11 A (2b). - Decided against the assessee.
Issues:
1. Cenvat credit reversal based on photocopy of invoices. 2. Refund claim rejection due to acceptance of duty liability without notice issuance. Analysis: 1. The appellant had taken cenvat credit based on photocopies of invoices, which was later reversed upon audit pointing out the mistake. The appellant accepted the error and reversed the credit without protest. The invoices and RG 23A Part II were examined, revealing that the credit was disallowed due to being availed on a reversed cenvat. The appellant also availed credit on a Bill of entry in their name, which was subsequently reversed as well. 2. The appellant filed a refund claim for the reversed credit, arguing that no notice was issued by the Revenue. However, the claim was rejected on the grounds that the appellant had accepted their duty liability without the need for a show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to Section 11 A (2b) of the Central Excise Act, which states that if the duty amount is paid before notice issuance and communicated to the Central Excise officer, no notice is required, aiming to reduce litigation. 3. The judgment emphasized that since the appellant did not dispute the credit reversal and accepted their duty liability without protest, they were deemed to have discharged their duty obligation under Section 11 A (2b). Consequently, the appeal was found to lack merit and was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI.
|
