9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1058 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - air travel services - courier services - reversal on the ground that credit irregularly availed - Held that - appellant s case is fully covered by judgement in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. CCE 2001 (9) TMI 135 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI , where it was held that In order to attract the provisions of Section 11AB as also Section 11AC, it has to be proved that there was wilful suppression on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against Commissioner's order confirming reversal of CENVAT credit towards air travel and courier services, and upholding balance amount reversal. - Appellant's claim of reversing CENVAT credit on rental services. - Department's contention of irregular CENVAT credit availed by the appellant. - Appellant's argument of inadvertent credit availing due to accounting oversight. - Appellant's reliance on legal precedents to support their case. - Department's stance on upholding the impugned order. Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Reversed CENVAT Credit: The appeal challenged the Commissioner's order confirming the reversal of CENVAT credit towards air travel and courier services, while upholding the balance amount reversed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the reversal of CENVAT credit on rental services was promptly executed upon discovery of irregularity, emphasizing compliance with legal provisions. They argued that the credit was inadvertently availed due to accounting staff's oversight, with no intention to evade duty. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Chandrapur Magnet Wires P. Ltd. vs. CCE, the appellant asserted that the credit reversal equated to non-availment. The Tribunal analyzed similar cases and concluded that the appellant's actions aligned with genuine mistakes and lacked intent to evade duty, thus setting aside the impugned order. 2. Alleged Irregular CENVAT Credit: The Department alleged irregular CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on various services, leading to a show-cause notice and subsequent Order-in-Original confirming the demand, interest, and penalty. The appellant clarified that the credit availed on rental charges was promptly reversed upon identification of the error, highlighting that the credit was not utilized but inadvertently accounted for due to accounting staff's lack of awareness regarding CENVAT credit rules. The appellant's reliance on legal authorities and precedents supported their argument that no mala fide intent existed, emphasizing immediate rectification upon detection of the oversight. The Department, represented by the AR, reiterated the findings of the impugned order, which the Tribunal ultimately set aside based on the appellant's compliance and lack of intent to evade duty. 3. Legal Precedents and Arguments: The appellant extensively relied on legal precedents such as Hardik Founders & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE and Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. vs. CCE to support their case against the imposition of penalty and interest. They argued that since the CENVAT credit was not utilized, penalties should not apply, emphasizing the absence of mens rea to evade duty. The appellant's submission of various authorities aimed to establish that the inadvertent credit availing and subsequent reversal demonstrated a bona fide mistake rather than intentional non-compliance. The Tribunal, considering these arguments and legal references, concluded in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and providing consequential relief, if applicable. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment in the appeal against the Commissioner's order highlighted the importance of compliance, inadvertent errors, and lack of intent to evade duty in cases of CENVAT credit availing and reversal. The detailed analysis of the appellant's arguments, Department's contentions, and legal precedents led to the setting aside of the impugned order, emphasizing the genuine nature of the appellant's actions and the absence of deliberate non-compliance.
|
