9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the company remains the owner of goods till the excisable goods are sold from the said premises after payment of duty from the factory - the appellant is entitled to credit of said services. Imposition of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal confirmed the imposition of interest and penalty on the disallowed amount of CENVAT credit, which is not the case herein inasmuch as the appellant has already paid the duty amount with interest well before issue of Show Cause Notice and is now praying for waiver of penalty in absence of allegation of fraud or suppression - the appellant in this case is entitled to waiver of penalty in terms of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of equal amount under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Apart from the above, in the original order, penalty of ₹ 55,069/- and ₹ 45,317/-, totalling to ₹ 1,00,386/- has also been imposed under the above provisions for wrong availment of credit / short payment of duty, which the appellant assessee has already paid with applicable interest before the issuance of Show Cause Notice without disputing the same. 3. Heard Sri A. K. Das, Advocate for the appellant and Sri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Supdt (A.R.) for the Department. 4. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that they are eligible for the credit of input services availed for renting of immovable property serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote issued by the vendor and (ii) short payment of duty of ₹ 45,317/- on commitment charges received from the buyers, and both the said amounts were paid with interest on being pointed out by the department instead of disputing the matter. The appellant is in appeal for seeking waiver of penalty imposed on them which is equivalent to the duty amount. The appellant relied on the decision in the case of CCE Kanpur vs. Rajasthan Transfer Switchgear Ltd. 2011 (264) ELT 413 (Tri) to plead that imposition of penalty is unwarranted in their case. He also submitted that no positive evidence of wilful suppression has been adduced in the proceedings to show that credit has been wrongly availed with an intent to evade payment of duty. On the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
