9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1052 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT/MODVAT credit - interest - penalty - Central Excise duty paid on 10 moulds during the period prior to 21/07/1995 were factually installed in the factory and subsequently removed to the job-workers - Held that - the appellant herein was unable to at forth any evidence that the 10 moulds in question were in fact received in the factory and subsequently removed to job-worker post 21/071995 - demand of MODVAT credit upheld. Interest and penalty - Held that - the period involved in this case is being prior to 1995 and the issue being disputed, which could have been argued on limitation, the question of imposing equivalent amount of penalty does not arise - interest also set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Consideration of demand of MODVAT credit along with interest 2. Sustainability of imposition of penalty on the appellant Analysis: The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal dated 13/11/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Pune-I. The main issue was whether the demand of MODVAT credit along with interest was rightly confirmed and whether the imposition of penalty on the appellant was sustainable. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to consider whether the CENVAT credit availed of the Central Excise duty paid on 10 moulds prior to 21/07/1995 were installed in the factory and later removed to job-workers. The appellant failed to provide evidence that the 10 moulds were received in the factory and then removed to job-workers post 21/07/1995. Consequently, the demands confirmed by the lower authorities were upheld. Regarding interest and penalty, since the period involved was before 1995 and the issue was disputed, the question of imposing an equivalent amount of penalty did not arise. Given that the issue was approximately 21 years old, it was deemed necessary to put it to rest. The interest liability and penalty imposed by the lower authorities were set aside based on the remand proceedings that allowed CENVAT credit of various moulds received and subsequently removed to job-workers. It was presumed that the appellant might have received the 10 moulds before dispatching them to the job-workers. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld to the extent of duty liability in the form of reversal of CENVAT credit on the 10 moulds, while the interest and penalty were set aside.
|
