9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 451 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - Cenvat Credit - Duty paying document - input services - sr. no was not pre-printed but hand written on Invoice - Waiver of pre deposit - Mandatory pre deposit - Held that - adjudicating authority disallowed CENVAT credit and confirmed the demand of ₹ 1.60 Crores alongwith interest and penalty, on the ground that the appellant had availed cenvat credit on the strength of invoices of the service providers, bearing hand written serial numbers. Both sides placed case laws in their favour. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Chandra Laxmi Tempered Glass Pvt. Limited 2008 (7) TMI 257 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT . - tribunal followed the decision of the Hon ble High Court and therefore, the decision of Single Member Bench of the Tribunal was not considered. In view of that, we do not find any reason for rectification or modification of the stay order. - Period for making compliance is extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues: Rectification of mistake/modification of Stay Order, Applicability of case laws, Consideration of decisions by Tribunal, Pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F, Demand of CENVAT credit, Limitation period for demand.
The judgment involves an application for rectification of mistake/modification of a Stay Order where the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 12 Lakh within four weeks. The applicant argued that the Tribunal based its decision on a case not applicable to the present circumstances and failed to consider relevant decisions by the Single Member Bench and Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The applicant also contended that the demand was not sustainable due to the adjudicating authority's oversight of the limitation issue. On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings in the Stay Order, emphasizing the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Upon hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal reproduced the relevant portion of the Stay Order, highlighting the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court and the necessity of pre-printed invoices. The Tribunal noted the arguments presented by both sides regarding the demand of CENVAT credit and the applicability of case laws. The Tribunal directed the applicant to make the pre-deposit of Rs. 12 Lakh within four weeks, with the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty to be waived till the appeal's disposal, emphasizing compliance by a specified date. Regarding the disallowed CENVAT credit and confirmed demand of Rs. 1.60 Crores, the Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the applicability of the Himachal Pradesh High Court decision and the limitation period for the demand. The Tribunal acknowledged the failure to consider the decision of the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal and found no grounds for rectification or modification of the Stay Order. The application for rectification was rejected, but the compliance period was extended in the interest of justice. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of mistake in the Stay Order but extended the compliance period, maintaining the pre-deposit requirement while considering the arguments presented by both parties and the applicability of relevant case laws and decisions by the Tribunal.
|
