9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit as the law provides credit to be taken only to the extent of duty paid - Held that: the appellants are not at fault but their supplier M/s. IOCL is responsible for indicating higher amount of duty in the invoice than what was actually paid by M/s. CPCL - Under the circumstances, the excess amount of credit taken by the appellants over and above the actual duty paid to the exchequer by M/s.CPC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As such, they have not committed any irregularity. 3. However, it is the Department s case that M/s. IOCL was not the manufacturer for the impugned goods, they obtained the same from M/s. CPCL and sold to the appellants as a registered dealer. In such a case, M/s. IOCL was required under law to indicate the actual amount of duty paid by M/s. CPCL in respect of the impugned goods and M/s. IOCL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod necessitating raising of the demand within the extended period. 5. In view of the fact that the duty amount paid by M/s. CPCL to the exchequer is less than the amount indicated in the invoice issued by M/s. IOCL, the appellants are not entitled to take the entire amount as credit as the law provides credit to be taken only to the extent of duty paid. The appellants have cited some case l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... up to them to seek compensation for the said amount from M/s. IOCL who are responsible for wrong invoicing in the first place. As regards the penalties imposed on the appellants, I am of the view that in the circumstances of the case since M/s. IOCL were at fault and they have already been penalized for the same as submitted by the learned SDR, there is no justification for imposing penalty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
