9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Revenue at two places, though assessee may have offices registered under the Revenue at two places - When Commissioner, Ahmedabad-III has already confirmed the demand disallowing the Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 3,55,20,028/- which included the Cenvat credit involved in the present proceedings amounting to ₹ 2,19,981/-, there cannot be any question to penalise twice for wrong Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put service distributor with Central Excise, Delhi-I. They had taken Cenvat credit in respect of sales commission paid to the dealers during the period 2013-2015. They were not eligible to claim Cenvat credit for said commission in the light of Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CCE Vs. Cadila Healthcare - 2013 (39) STT 473 (Guj.) where the service of commission agent was not found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III has also been imposed further penalties under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2.2 The appellant submits that the Cenvat credit amount involved in the present proceedings of ₹ 2,19,981/- for which equivalent penalty of the said amount has been imposed by the impugned order has been part of the Order-in-Original dated 27.11.2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mounting to ₹ 2,19,981/-, there cannot be any question to penalise twice for wrong Cenvat credit taken by the assessee once. 5. In the light of the above facts and discussions, penalty imposed of ₹ 2,19,981/- by the impugned order is not sustainable as it is a duplication of the proceedings against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty of ₹ 2,19,981/- is hereby dropped and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
