9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 421 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat credit - suppression/under-valuation - M/s. CPCL has approached to the Settlement Commission and without accepting the allegation in the show-cause notice, opted to settle the matter by paying duty and the interest which has been considered by the Settlement Commission while settling the issue wherein M/s. CPCL has been given immunity from penalty and prosecution. Therefore, the allegation of suppression has not attained finality as the same has not been adjudicated Held that - allegations were not established at any stage and they remained allegations only. The Settlement Commission has settled the issue and not decided or established the allegations of suppression, etc. On this point, the action taken by the Appellant cannot be faulted, since the proceedings before the Settlement Commission were conclusive. So far as the availment of CENVAT Credit on the strength of supplementary invoices dated 30-6-2006 is concerned, undisputedly they have taken the credit only on 31-7-2006 on the date when the duty had been paid by M/s. CPCL - We find that in the Appellant s own case on the same issue (2011 (6) TMI 520 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai, while relying upon the decision in the case of Bosch Chassis Systems (India) (2008 (9) TMI 106 - CESTAT NEW DELHI). In these circumstances, since we find that the impugned Order is not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, interest, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Availment and utilization of CENVAT Credit based on supplementary invoices. - Allegations of suppression, misstatement, and evasion of duty. - Applicability of Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Settlement Commission's decision and immunity granted to M/s. CPCL. - Timing of CENVAT Credit availment and duty payment. Analysis: 1. The Appellant filed an appeal against an Order-in-Original confirming a duty demand of Rs. 4,20,15,654.00, interest, and a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The case revolved around the Appellant's availing and utilization of CENVAT Credit based on supplementary invoices issued by M/s. CPCL for the supply of Lube Oil Base Stock (LOBS) from October 2004 to May 2006. 2. The Department alleged that M/s. CPCL suppressed facts to evade duty, leading to a demand on the Appellant for wrongly availing the CENVAT Credit. The Settlement Commission granted immunity to M/s. CPCL but issued a show cause notice to the Appellant. The Appellant contended that Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules did not apply as suppression allegations against M/s. CPCL were unproven. 3. The Appellant cited precedents to support their argument that mere allegations do not suffice without proof. The Appellant emphasized that they took the credit after duty payment by M/s. CPCL, and any action should have been directed at M/s. CPCL, not them. The Appellant's case was supported by a Co-ordinate Bench decision and other legal references. 4. The Appellant's contention was that the allegations against M/s. CPCL were not proven, and the Settlement Commission's decision did not establish suppression. The Appellant only availed the CENVAT Credit after duty payment by M/s. CPCL, in compliance with the rules. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, noting that the Settlement Commission's decision was conclusive, and the Appellant's actions were justified. The impugned Order was set aside, and the Appeal was allowed. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the lack of proven allegations against M/s. CPCL, the timing of CENVAT Credit availment post-duty payment, and the Settlement Commission's decision. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Order-in-Original highlighted the importance of substantiated claims and adherence to legal provisions in excise matters.
|
