9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Wrong availment of ₹ 1.28 lakhs - Held that:- There could be a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that inasmuch as the services stand availed by their sister concern only, they were in a position to avail the credit. While confirming the demand along with confirmation of interest, the penalty of ₹ 56,74,746/- imposed upon the appellant is set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL No. E/579/2012-EX[DB] - A/71766/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 31-7-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Rajeev Ranjan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the reversal entries already made by the appellant were confirmed along with confirmation of interest and penalty to the extent of ₹ 56,74,746/- was imposed under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the only challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty. Arguing further, he submits that the credit of ₹ 55.45 lakhs was availed by them, prior to making payment to the service provider, which in any case available to them, after making payments and the only lapse on their part was the pre-mature availment. He submits that subsequently after making payment for the services, they had again avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in such a case even the interest was not required to be paid in terms of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE ST, LTU, Bangalore 2012 (279) E.L.T. 209 (Kar.), the appellant reversed the entire credit along with interest and is not contesting the payment of interest. As such taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find no justification for imposition of penalty on the said ground. 6. As regards, the wrong availment of ₹ 1.28 lakhs, we are of the view that there could be a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that inasmuch as the services stand availed by their sister concern only, they were in a position to avail the credit. We also note th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
