9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It has been pointed out by the learned Chartered Accountant appearing for Revenue that the department in its audit report itself alleged the availment of excess credit amount to ₹ 4,38,389/- only and not the amount of ₹ 4,38,439/-. No reason has been mentioned by the Revenue for mentioning the lesser amount in its audit report. It is the mistake on account of incorrect calculation on the part of the department and Appellant cannot be penalised for it. The Appellant acted fairly and immediately upon being pointed out by the audit party, reversed the excess excess credit availed by them alongwith applicable interest. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- Proviso to Section 11AC(1)(a) , Central Excise Act, 1944 specifically provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit Officers, it was noticed that during the period 2012-13 to 2013-14, the Appellant had irregularly availed and utilized excess Cenvat Credit of ₹ 4,38,439/- on capital goods and inputs. On being pointed out by Audit Party, the appellants realized their mistake and reversed the credit of ₹ 4,38,389/- on 30.4.2014 and also paid interest of ₹ 11,291/- on 25.7.2014. According to the Appellant due to typographical error in respect of 7 invoices the incorrect amount was recorded. Despite reversing the amount with interest, a show cause notice dated 24.4.2015 was issued to the Appellant proposing to demand Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 4,38,489/- alongwith interest and penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is no willful suppression on the part of the appellants with intention to evade payment of duty. The omission, if any, is bonafide. The learned Commissioner imposed the penalty on the appellants mainly on the ground that there was short reversal of ₹ 50/- on the part of the Appellant and therefore the Appellants were held liable for 100% penalty on the total amount of ₹ 4,38,439/-. It is not the case of Revenue that despite being pointed out by the department about the short reversal of ₹ 50/- the Appellant failed to do the needful nor it is the case of Revenue that they raised this plea before the Adjudicating Authority at the time of hearing. It seems this issue was raised by Revenue before the learned Commissioner for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
