9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government Undertaking engaged in the manufacture of G1/SG1 castings and windmill castings falling under TH No. 73259910 of CETA, 1985. Appellant has been importing raw-materials on which cenvat credit of Customs duty was paid. The records of the appellant were audited by the internal audit in 2013 and it was pointed out that the appellant had availed cenvat credit of basic Customs duty of Rs. 10,27,553/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three only) paid on imported inputs for which no cenvat credit is eligible. On the mistake being pointed out by the audit, the appellant paid the ineligible credit of Rs. 10,27,553/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three only) along with interest o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvertently taken which was reversed before the issue of show-cause notice. He further submitted that in such circumstances imposition of penalty is not warranted by law and he relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions: * Panasonic AVC Networks India Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-II - 2012 (280) E.L.T. 297 (Tri.-Del.) * Landis +Gyr Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolkata-V - 2013 (290) E.L.T. 447 (Tri.-Kolkata) * Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 141 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * YCH Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE, Cus. & ST, Bangalore-I 2020 (43) G.S.T.L 518 (Tri.-Bang.) * Pr. CCE, Bengaluru V. Vilax Industrial Fabrics - 2018-TIOL-1363-HC-KAR-CX 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contention of the appellant that they bonafidely believed that they are not liable to pay service tax but when the audit party raised the objection that they are liable to pay service tax, then they immediately paid the service tax along with interest which is admitted in the impugned order, is justified. Further except mere allegation of suppression, the Department did not bring any material to prove that there was suppression and concealment of facts to evade payment of tax. Consequently, in our considered view, the imposition of penalty under Section 77 & 78 is not justified and bad in law. Hence, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant by allowing the appeal of the appellant." 5.1. Further, I find that the Karnataka High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
