9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1255 - AT - Service TaxRecovery of CENVAT Credit - Special Additional Duty of Customs - reversal of cenvat credit shown in the revised return which was filed belated - Held that - The claim of the Applicant is that they had already reversed the said wrong Credit along with the interest and reflected in the revised return filed with the Department. Prima facie, we find that the ld. Commissioner though did not dispute about the said reversal of the CENVAT Credit wrongly availed by the Applicant, but rejected the payment on the ground that since in the original return, there was no reversal or withdrawal of CENVAT Credit, the subsequent reversal in the revised return which was filed beyond the stipulated period, could not be accepted. Prima facie, we do not find any substance in the said observation made by the ld. Commissioner. In these circumstances, as the reversal of CENVAT Credit has not been in dispute, we find that the Applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of the dues adjudged. Accordingly, the pre-deposit of the dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Stay granted.
Issues Involved:
Application for waiver of CENVAT Credit and penalties under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved an application seeking waiver of CENVAT Credit and penalties amounting to Rs.4,35,40,758/- under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with an equal penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) and Rs.5,000/- under Section 7(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Applicant had availed CENVAT Credit on Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) during the period from October 2007 to March 2009, which was found to be inadmissible under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Applicant reversed the wrongly availed CENVAT Credit of Rs.4,35,40,758/- and paid interest of Rs.64,08,168/- on the total amount of Rs.6.64 Crore. The main contention was that the revised return reflecting the reversal of CENVAT Credit on SAD was filed beyond the stipulated period as prescribed under the relevant Rule of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Advocate for the Applicant argued that despite the reversal of CENVAT Credit not being disputed by the Adjudicating Authority, the demand was confirmed on the basis of the revised return being filed late. The Revenue, represented by the ld. Additional Commissioner, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the principal issue was the recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT Credit on SAD, which was not admissible under the rules. The Tribunal noted that the reversal of the CENVAT Credit by the Applicant was not in dispute, and the rejection by the Commissioner based on the timing of the revised return was not substantiated. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had made a prima facie case for waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues adjudged. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of the dues and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the Appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case centered on the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on SAD, the timely reversal of the wrongly availed credit, and the procedural aspects of filing revised returns within stipulated periods. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating claims and adherence to procedural requirements in matters concerning CENVAT Credit and penalties under the relevant rules and acts.
|
