9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alized office in Bangalore - Held that:- there was no intention of the appellant to take the Cenvat Credit when it was not due. In fact it had become due to them, when they had paid the service tax in the month of November 2009 and the reason has explained by the appellant for the same mistake. Sometimes such unintentional mis-happenings/mistakes do take place for which the appellant is not to be punished by imposing the penalties. Therefore, by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME Court], the penalty under Rule 15 ibid is not imposable. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit - Taken twice on same set of documents - Appellant pleaded that that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25,024 4 Amounts which do not represent Service Tax - BWSSB Bills 1,675 5 Credit availed more than once on the same set of documents 6,85,310 Total 28,96,872 3. The appellant is pleading that the cenvat credit of ₹ 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) mentioned at Sl. No. 1 in above table is in respect of input services received from abroad and service tax paid on reverse charge basis; in this regard service tax was paid in the month of November 2009 though by mistake they took the cenvat credit in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not take cenvat credits twice on the same set of documents; therefore, this cenvat credit amount of ₹ 6,85,310/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) they are rightly eligible to take. 3.3. The appellant is further arguing that Revenue has imposed a penalty of ₹ 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the alleged wrong credit availed in respect of service tax paid for the input services received from abroad (on reverse charge basis in the month of November 2009), though credit was taken in the month of April 2009. This equivalent penalty of ₹ 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Sev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 14,67,499/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules for the above wrongly taken cenvat credit, the facts indicate that for taking the cenvat credit there was no intention of the appellant to take it when it was not due. In fact it had become due to them, when they had paid the service tax in the month of November 2009; the said lapse has been explained by the appellant saying that the said services were received from abroad in their Mumbai office and statements using such services come to their centralized office in Bangalore. Sometimes such unintentional mis-happenings/mistakes do take place for which the appellant is not to be punished by imposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the Company in failing to register the Company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the Company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out. 8. In case of cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
