9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (3) TMI 199 - AT - Service TaxWrong availment of cenvat credit reversal of credit before show cause notice assessee was a major assessee paying duty in Crores and that they have taken an amount of Rs.12, 007/- inadvertently and detected the mistake and rectified the same and they have not utilized the credit Held that At the outset the appellant is not disputing their liability to pay an amount of Rs.12, 007/- which they had already reversed. They are disputing only interest and penalty imposed by the authorities below. Considering the facts narrated above and taking into account that sufficient credit was lying unutilized by the appellant the questions of confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC do not arise
Issues:
1. Press reporters' access to the order for publication under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 2. Release of the order for publication in authoritative reports under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. 3. Requirement for His Lordship to review the fair copy of the order. 4. Circulation of the order to Departmental Authorities. Analysis: Issue 1: The judgment addressed whether press reporters could access the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The decision did not specifically mention the outcome of this issue, focusing instead on the substantive case. Issue 2: The judgment deliberated on releasing the order for publication in authoritative reports under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. However, the final decision did not explicitly mention the release of the order for publication. Issue 3: The judgment considered whether His Lordship needed to review the fair copy of the order. This issue was not elaborated upon in the final decision, as the focus was on the substantive case concerning duty, interest, and penalty. Issue 4: The judgment discussed the circulation of the order to Departmental Authorities. The decision did not specify whether the order would be circulated to the Departmental Authorities. Substantive Case Analysis: The judgment dealt with a case involving a manufacturer of Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) who erroneously claimed a service tax credit of Rs.12,007 for the period January 2005 to May 2005. Upon detecting the error, the appellant rectified it by reversing the credit on 02.01.2006 and informed the Department. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to the imposition of a demand for Rs.12,007 along with interest and penalty. The appellant, a major duty payer, argued that they had rectified the mistake promptly, had not utilized the credit, and should not be penalized. The Department, represented by the SDR, upheld the original authority's decision. After considering both sides, the judgment upheld the demand for duty as uncontested since the appellant had already reversed the amount. However, it set aside the demands for interest and penalty, citing that the appellant had not benefited from the unutilized credit. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeal, upholding the duty demand and overturning the interest and penalty impositions. The stay petition was also disposed of in the same order. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by Technical Member M. Veeriayan.
|
