9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ously refunded, along with interest - The intrinsic evidence, which, is available in this case, indicates that this amount i.e., the CENVAT credit which has been disallowed, is embedded in the demand of Rs. 16,61,78,084/-. The fact that the petitioner made a mistake in stating a higher amount concerning outstanding service tax demand, cannot result in an estoppel and thus impede the petitioner from seeking the requisite benefits under the Scheme and the provisions of the Act. The calculation presented by the petitioner on the principles articulated before us, is not disputed by the respondents/revenue - What the respondents/revenue dispute is that the demand cannot be limited to Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, as the amount which was disallowed by way of CENVAT credit i.e., Rs. 8,07,72,766/-, had to be added to the same. The impugned statement dated 24.12.2019 and the order dated 23.01.2020, passed in the rectification application, are set aside - Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) 2882/2020 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran with Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Advocates. Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evident from the extract above [and according to Mr Kumaran] that CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.8,07,72,766/-, which was utilized to pay service tax, was disallowed. 2.2 It is emphasized by Mr Kumaran that, admittedly, the petitioner has paid in cash towards the tax demand, Rs.6,39,36,641/-. 3. Under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [hereafter referred to as Scheme ], the petitioner gets a rebate of 50% of the tax demand, which, according to Mr Kumaran, was pegged at, as noticed above, Rs.16,61,78,084/- and after accounting for rebate would be scaled down to Rs 8,30,89,042/-. 3.1 Therefore, Mr Kumaran says that, if against Rs. 8,30,89,042/-, Rs.6,39,36,641/- is set off, as this amount is already paid, the petitioner, rightly, paid towards tax the balance amount i.e., Rs.1,91,52,401/-. 5. It is Mr Kumaran submission that the insistence of the respondents/revenue that the petitioner should have paid Rs.5,95,38,784/-, is erroneous. 5.1. Furthermore, according to Mr Kumaran, this error has occurred, as the respondents/revenue have added to the demand of the service tax amount quantified at Rs. 16,61,78,084/-, the amount which was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 16,61,78,084/-. 6.3. Mr Hossain says that the petitioner s initial approach was correct, and therefore, the tax that the petitioner ought to have deposited was Rs. 5,95,38,784/- and not Rs.1,91,52,401/-. 6.4. In support of this plea, Mr Hossain has taken us through the order-in-original dated 20.04.2015 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6.5. Furthermore, Mr Hossain has also sought to place reliance on Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [in short 2004 Rules ]. 6.6. Based on the said provision, Mr Hossain argues that the respondents/revenue are entitled to recover, not only the wrongly availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs 8,07,72,776/-, but also interest, in accordance with the aforesaid provision. 7. Mr V. Lakshmikumaran, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, contends to the contrary. It is Mr Lakshmikumaran s submission that the wrongly availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 8,07,72,766/- is embedded in the demand pegged at Rs. 16,61,78,084/-. 7.1. The fact that it is embedded, is sought to be demonstrated by Mr Lakshmikumaran by referring to the operative directions contained in the order-in-original dated 20.04.2015. 7.2. Besides this, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Service Tax. (e) I do not impose any Penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 as penalty is already imposed under Section 78 ibid. The penalty shall be reduced to 25% provided the duty demanded along with interest and 25% of the penalty is paid within 30 days of receipt of this order. 8.2. A careful perusal of the directions would show that the demand, as is contended by Mr Lakshmikumaran, is pegged at Rs. 16,61,78,084/-. This is evident on a bare perusal of clause (a) of the operative directions. 8.3. Insofar as clause (b) is concerned, it simply says that CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 8,07,72,766/- which was wrongly availed and utilised against payment of service tax liability, is disallowed and in that behalf Rule 14 of the 2004 Rules has been invoked. 8.4. It is important to highlight that Rule 14 of the 2004 Rules is a recovery provision, which entitles the respondents to straightaway proceed to recover CENVAT credit which has been taken or utilised wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, along with interest. 9. The intrinsic evidence, which, according to us, is available in this case, indicates that this amount i.e., the CENVAT credit whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
