9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/1136/2010-SM(BR) - 1219/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 15-10-2010 - Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY : Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Chartered Accountant, for the Appellant. Shri K.P. Singh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Learned authorized representative submits that the appellant was under belief that Maruti Van that was purchased having suffered central excise duty for use in providing courier service entitles the appellant to avail Cenvat Credit of Central Excise duty paid on Maruti Van. With such belief, even if the vehicle was purchased from the dealer, the appellants set off the duty element of Rs. 71,026/- as Cenvat credit against service tax paid by them. But, when the appellants came to understand tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of the appellants who came forward to discharge the tax demand after the adjudication order was passed and also interest and penalty deposited to the above extent. Adjudication order was passed on 21-12-2009 raising service tax demand of Rs. 71,026/-, interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, and penalty of Rs. 71,026/- under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, as well as penalty of Rs. 71,026/- under Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) waived the penalty under Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 coming to the conclusion that there was no penal provision under that rule at the material time. It appears that Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 having made provision for imposition of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case do not pose any difficulty to understand that the appellants did not prefer litigation. Unfortunately, ignorance of law of the appellant appears to have clouded in the minds of the appellant to commit bona fide mistake. When ignorance of law comes to record, the appellant should not suffer for its mistake. 8. When the aforesaid features persist, it is not desirable to keep this appeal pending merely disposing stay application when sufficient materials came to record. Therefore, dispensing with pre-deposit and also considering that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 17,757/- towards penalty the balance demand of penalty is waived. Consequently, the appellant gets relief partly to the extent of the quantum of penalty of Rs. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
