9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 261 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - only plea put forward by the ld. counsel is that the adjudicating authority may be directed to verify the CENVAT documents and may be given benefit of the CENVAT credit in case the appellant produce documents - Held that - In Vikash J. Shah Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Coimbatore 2016 (2) TMI 442 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Honble High Court observed that the benefit of CENVAT credit ought to be given to the appellant - We direct the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the appellant for CENVAT credit on production of documents. The said verification shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Penalty on M/s. Sri Amman Allied and Steel Industries - Held that - Taking into consideration of the fact that equal penalty under section 11AC has been imposed and also that a penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed upon a company, we find that the said penalty requires to be set aside. Matter remanded to verify the plea of appellant regarding benefit of CENVAT credit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Duty demand on clandestine clearance of MS ingots 2. CENVAT credit wrongly availed 3. Interest and penalty imposition 4. Appeal against Order-in-Original 5. Verification of CENVAT credit eligibility 6. Penalty under Rule 26 imposition Analysis: 1. Duty Demand on Clandestine Clearance of MS Ingots: The case involved M/s. Sri Ulaganayaki Amman Steels being accused of manufacturing and clearing MS ingots clandestinely. The original authority confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 83,04,988/- for goods removed clandestinely and &8377; 6,48,392/- for wrongly availed CENVAT credit. The Tribunal remanded the case for denovo proceedings, where the Commissioner confirmed the duty demand along with interest and imposed a penalty under section 11AC on M/s. Sri Ulaganayaki Amman Steels. 2. CENVAT Credit Wrongly Availed: The Commissioner dropped the demand of &8377; 6,48,392/- for recovery of CENVAT credit against M/s. Sri Ulaganayaki Amman Steels. The appellants filed appeals against these decisions. 3. Interest and Penalty Imposition: Interest under section 11AB and penalty under section 11AC were imposed on M/s. Sri Ulaganayaki Amman Steels. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. One lakh was imposed on M/s. Sri Amman Allied and Steel Industries under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2000. 4. Appeal Against Order-in-Original: Both the appellants filed appeals before the Tribunal against the Order-in-Original dated 4.5.2007. The Tribunal remanded the case for further proceedings. 5. Verification of CENVAT Credit Eligibility: During the hearing, the appellants expressed their willingness to withdraw the appeal and requested verification of their eligibility for CENVAT credit. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to consider the claim for CENVAT credit on production of relevant documents within three months. 6. Penalty Under Rule 26 Imposition: The counsel requested to waive the penalty imposed on M/s. Sri Amman Allied and Steel Industries under Rule 26. Considering that an equal penalty under section 11AC had been imposed, the Tribunal set aside the penalty under Rule 26. In conclusion, Appeal No. E/324/2009 was dismissed with a direction for verifying the CENVAT credit claim, while Appeal No. E/325/2009 was allowed, setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 26.
|
