9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonafide mistake in not knowing the change of rule and the same cannot be treated as suppression of fact or mis-statement etc. as they have paid the entire duty demand amount by way of Cess which were no more leviable. It has been held that such conduct of appellant can never be treated as suppression of fact, willful misstatement of fraud or violation of statutory provision to invoke extended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting to ₹ 5,20,429/- on CVD after 01.04.2012, which was no more leviable from the said date and availed Cenvat credit thereof in 2014-15. During audit it was pointed out that such credit was inadmissible in view of Rule 3 of Cenvat credit Rules which permits Cenvat credit only on duties and thus payment which was no more a duty with effect from 01.04.2012, is inadmissible. In his submission, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no Cenvat credit was availed by them in respect of such education cess etc. in respect of basic custom duty component since it was zero rated and immediately upon pointing out of such wrong availment of credit against payment of cess on CVD, the duty demand was met way back in the year 2015 while Show Cause Notice on ground of suppression was served on them in 2016. Despite the fact that such pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t such availment of inadmissible credit by the Appellant if statutory records were not produced before him. Further, as found from the order of Commissioner (Appeals), he reduced the fine amount to 50% on the ground that the subjected transactions by the appellant were recorded in the Books of Accounts from where auditor could unearth the irregularities during audit. Therefore, the case of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nduct of appellant can never be treated as suppression of fact, willful misstatement of fraud or violation of statutory provision to invoke extended period and impose fiscal penalty on the appellant. Hence the order. 5. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 22.03.2018 confirming of penalty of ₹ 5,20,429/-, is hereby set aside. (Pronounced in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
