9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Hemant Bajaj, Sh. Dhruv Tiwari Sh. S. C. Vaidyanathan, Advocates for the appellant Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant have taken wrong cenvat credit of the same amount twice. 3. Brief facts are that during the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant had availed and utilised cenvat credit of ₹ 3,37,291/-, which was taken twice in respect of returned goods from M/s Chetan Industries as per their cenvat credit account as detailed below:- Month Entry No. Date Amount of credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second time in respect of above mentioned returned goods, as the said documents does not contain reduced balance after the said debit entry. 5. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 19.08.2019 was issued to the appellants proposing to deny the credit of ₹ 3,37,291/- for the period April, 2016 to June, 2017 and recovery of same alongwith interest and penalty under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 73, and Sectopm 75 of Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of the Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 6. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 3,37,291/- vide order in original No. 35/2020-CGST-B (Dem-ST0 dated 15.07.2020 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at of wrongly reversed duty. The details of entries so passed are as follows: i) Entry No. 9040241439 dt.31.12.2016 (for goods returned back). ii) Entry No. 9040241441 dt. 31.12.2016 for correction of wrong reversal. 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) after taking notice of the facts and the documents produced before him have been pleased to dismiss the appeal agreeing with the adjudication order. 9. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has demonstrated that they are maintaining their accounts on SAP system of accounting. They have demonstrated that they have debited their duty payable of ₹ 3,37,291/- at the time of clearance of the goods on 31.01.2016 vide E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
