9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 443 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat credit on Special Countervailing Duty credit denied on the ground that inputs were never received in the factory premises - Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that - The entire amount of cenvat credit taken along with interest and 25% of the penalty imposed, have already been paid and the appellants are contesting the issue on merits - The payments already made by the appellant are considered sufficient for the purpose of admitting the appeals for disposal - stay against recovery of balance amounts involved in the appeals is granted till the disposal stay granted.
Issues involved: Availing cenvat credit on Special Countervailing Duty (SAD) of Rs. 26,31,022.
Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved the issue of availing cenvat credit on Special Countervailing Duty (SAD) of Rs. 26,31,022 by the appellants, M/s. Gujarat Boron Derivatives Pvt. Limited, Panchmahal, and another. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging that the cenvat credit on SAD was inadmissible as the inputs were never received in the factory premises. The appellants had reversed the entire amount of cenvat credit before the issuance of the show cause notice, and had also paid interest and 25% of the penalty imposed under the adjudication order via TR-6 Challans dated 14.12.2011. During the proceedings, the advocates representing the appellants argued that since the full amount of cenvat credit, along with interest and a portion of the penalty, had already been paid, a stay should be granted against the remaining amounts. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by Shri S.K. Mall, reiterated the position taken by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had already paid the entire cenvat credit amount, along with interest and a portion of the penalty. The Tribunal found that the appellants were contesting the issue on its merits. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the payments made by the appellants to be sufficient for the purpose of admitting the appeals for disposal. Therefore, the Tribunal granted a stay against the recovery of the remaining balance amounts involved in the appeals until their final disposal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Court by Mr. H.K. Thakur, J.
|
