9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2,25,962/- due to delay in reversal of cenvat credit as per the computation given at the time of argument. Since as per the details given by the appellant, he has reversed specific amount for the disputed period except ₹ 1,77,784/- which is liable to be reversed along with interest of ₹ 2,25,962/-. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The Department has not brought any material on record to show that the appellant has suppressed the material fact with intent to evade the payment of duty. All the details were given in the books of accounts and also in ER-1 return from time to time which was audited by the Department - the substantial amount of cenvat credit was reversed before the issuance of show-cause notice, therefore the appellant is not liable to pay penalty - the appellants are not liable to pay the penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The appeal of the appellant is allowed subject to the verification of the reversal of ineligible credit made by the appellant as per the formula specified in clause (c) of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/21252/2018-SM - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able interest and imposed a penalty of ₹ 44,64,619/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Nineteen only) under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2004 (CER) read with Section 11AC (1)(c) of CEA. The lower authority in the impugned order also appropriated the reversal of ₹ 23,81,796/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Six only) already paid by the appellants towards the confirmed demand. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the documents produced by the appellant in support of their submissions. He further submitted that both the authorities have not actually verified the details of reversal of cenvat credit with their ER-1 returns of the relevant tax period. He also submitted that the appellants have in fact reversed the irregular cenvat credit availed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that out of ₹ 34,97,586/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Six only) as quantified by the Department, the appellant has reversed ₹ 33,77,937/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Seven only) before the statutory due date and before issuance of show-cause notice. The details of the said reversal is given at Page 20 of the appeal booklet and the same has been declared in ER-1 returns. With regard to ₹ 1,19,649/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only) the appellant contested the same because the value of service tax availed as per the Department is not in accordance with the Chartered Accountant certificate. The Department has considered service tax availed value higher by ₹ 5,88,024/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand and Twenty Four only) although it was mentioned in the show-cause notice that basis for reversal of cenvat credit shall be based on the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Further with regard to the period April 2014 to March 2015 , no demand was raised by the Department. For the period April 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounting to ₹ 1,19,649/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Nine only) and for the period April 2015 to March 2016 also the appellant has reversed less amount to the extent of ₹ 58,135/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Five only). He further submitted that in total the appellant is required to reverse ₹ 1,77,784/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Four only) along with interest for delayed reversal. He further submitted that the appellant has suppressed the material facts in order to evade the payment of duty and therefore the penalty has been rightly imposed. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the appellants have reversed the cenvat credit irregularly availed as per Rule 6 (3A). In respect of the disputed periods, the bone of contention between the appellant and the Department is the quantum of the amount to be reversed under Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant claimed that they have reversed the proportionate credit on the basis of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
