9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the records had detected continuous availment of Cenvat credit twice in some invoices such and, therefore, prima facie the contention of the learned Counsel that they have voluntarily deposited the tax cannot be accepted - Assessee has taken the credit twice on the basis of documents continuously for more than two years. Therefore, the facts of the said case would not be applicable herein. Applicant failed the make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of penalty - stay denied. - E/40375/2014 - MISC. ORDER No. 41058/2014 - Dated:- 19-6-2014 - Shri Pradip Kumar Das and Shri R. Periasami, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri V.S. Manoj, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri P. Arul, Supdt.-AR ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the issue of the show-cause notice and, therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC would not be warranted in view of Section 11A(3) of the Act. He submits that in the present case, the double entry was made due to system error. The applicant availed Cenvat credit on 450 invoices (approx.) per month and double credit has been availed on 113 nos. of invoices due to system error. Out of the 113 nos. of invoices, Preventive Officers detected only two such invoices and the rest were brought to light by the applicant themselves. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 2013 (287) E.L.T.467 (Tri.-Ahmd.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma facie the contention of the learned Counsel that they have voluntarily deposited the tax cannot be accepted. 5. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. (supra). In that case, there was denial of credit of ₹ 8,63,004/- on the ground that the applicant had taken credit twice based on the same document. In the present case, they have taken the credit twice on the basis of documents continuously for more than two years. Therefore, the facts of the said case would not be applicable herein. We find that the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Vodofone Digilink Ltd. (supra) dismissed the appeal of the assessee regarding the imposition of penalty. In that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
