9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a manufacturer of railway wagons. During the period from April 2012 to June 2012, the respondent were clearing railway wagons and other materials to the Indian Railways on payment of duty at the rate of 6%, amounting to Rs.4,67,02,382/-. As the respondent was entitled to the benefit in terms of Notification No. 01/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011 that if the duty is paid is cash for clearance of goods to the Indian Railways, then duty is payable at the rate of 2%, in the month of July 2012, the respondent paid the duty for the period April 2012 to June 2012 at the rate of 2% along with interest, in cash, and took suo moto credit of the duty paid through CENVAT Credit account. 2.1. The Revenue is of the view that suo moto credit cannot be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilway wagons to the Indian Railways as well as private parties; for clearances made to private parties, the respondent are paying duty at the rate of 6% by utilizing their CENVAT Credit account and for clearances made to the Indian Railways, during the impugned period viz. April 2012 to June 2012, initially they utilized their CENVAT Credit account and paid duty at the rate of 6%, but later on the said payment was made in terms of Notification No. 01/2011-C.E. dated 01.03.2011, in cash. He therefore submits that the duty paid at the rate of 6% for clearances to Indian Railways was entitled to them as CENVAT Credit, which the respondent had taken suo moto and therefore, the Revenue fell in factual error for holding that the respondent are re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g through PLA account. It is only adjusted as the duty on the same goods cannot be paid twice and as the required amount of duty on the wagons cleared was on payment from PLA.. They were certainly entitled for taking the cenvat credit which was debited in the first instance. Thus, we find that there is no substantial violation of any provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, which can be invoked for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 8.2. As the issue stands settled, therefore, following the decision in the case of CIMMCO Ltd. (supra), we hold that the respondent has correctly taken suo moto credit of the duty paid by utilizing CENVAT Credit account, which has been ultimately paid, in cash, along with interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
