9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 443 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - Recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Interest under section 11AB - Penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - The appellate authority dismissed the assessee s appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F - Held that - Appellant-company submits that the entire amount of CENVAT credit has been reversed, albeit under protest. The above claim of the appellant can be verified at the lower appellate level. Therefore, allow the present appeal by way of remand with a request to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the said appeal of the assessee on its merits without insisting on any predeposit. Appeal allowed in favour of assessee
Issues:
1. Waiver and stay of adjudged dues 2. Disallowance of CENVAT credit, recovery, interest, and penalty 3. Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement 4. Reversal of CENVAT credit under protest 5. Remand for appeal hearing without pre-deposit Analysis: Issue 1: Waiver and stay of adjudged dues The appellant filed an application seeking waiver and stay of the adjudged dues. The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and hearing both sides, decided that the appeal itself needed to be finally disposed of at that stage. Consequently, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded to take up the appeal. Issue 2: Disallowance of CENVAT credit, recovery, interest, and penalty The original authority disallowed CENVAT credit of Rs.14,85,488/- and ordered its recovery under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, interest was demanded under the same Rule read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, and a penalty equal to duty was imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Act. The appellant, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). Issue 3: Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to pre-deposit 50% of the duty amount, which was not done within the stipulated period. As a result, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, leading to the present appeal by the assessee. Issue 4: Reversal of CENVAT credit under protest The appellant submitted that the entire amount of CENVAT credit had been reversed under protest on a specific date. Evidence of this reversal was provided to the Tribunal, and it was acknowledged that there was no dispute regarding the reversal of CENVAT credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside to allow the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on its merits. Issue 5: Remand for appeal hearing without pre-deposit The Tribunal allowed the present appeal by way of remand, requesting the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the assessee's appeal on its merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to pass a speaking order on all relevant issues after giving the party a reasonable opportunity to be heard. In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of waiver and stay of adjudged dues, disallowance of CENVAT credit, non-compliance with pre-deposit requirements, reversal of CENVAT credit under protest, and remand for appeal hearing without pre-deposit in a thorough and detailed manner, ensuring a fair consideration of the appellant's case.
|
