Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (12) TMI 924 - AT - Central Excise


Issues Involved:
1. Denial of CENVAT Credit on MS Sheets used for exempted PCC pipes.
2. Duty on MS Specials/Flanges and Tees.
3. Short-paid duty on a dutiable final product.

Issue 1 - Denial of CENVAT Credit on MS Sheets:
The appellant contested the denial of input service tax credit on MS Sheets alone, arguing that the amount already paid under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules should be adjusted against the denied credit. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal decision for a similar issue. The appellant also argued against the imposition of penalties, stating there was no suppression on their part, and they acted in compliance with the rules.

Issue 2 & 3 - Duty on MS Specials and Short-paid Duty:
The appellant conceded to the demands related to duty on MS Specials/Flanges and Tees and short-paid duty on a final product. The appellant had already paid the necessary amounts for these issues. However, the appellant contested the penalties imposed, claiming there was no malicious intent, and any errors were inadvertent. The appellant argued that penalties were unjustified as there was no evidence of suppression of facts to evade duty payment.

The Department supported the findings of the lower authorities, alleging suppression of facts by the appellant. However, the Tribunal found no positive evidence of suppression to invoke the extended period for demands not contested on merits. Therefore, the demands for the extended period were set aside as time-barred. The Tribunal also set aside the penalties imposed due to the lack of evidence of suppression of facts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by adjusting the denied CENVAT credit amount with the sum already paid by the appellant. The demands for issues 2 and 3 were upheld as conceded by the appellant. The penalties imposed for all issues were set aside due to the absence of evidence of suppression of facts.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates