Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (11) TMI 1278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of CENVAT credit to recipient sister units - penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact on record that the appellants have themselves computed the differential duty liability and also paid the same along with interest, upon finalization of the books of accounts in form CAS-4 for effecting supply of goods to their sister units. The differential duty was paid and the same was invoiced to the sister units, by issuance of the supplementary invoices. Rule 9 of the Rules of 2004, has prescribed various documents, based on which CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer. Sub-rule (1)(b) of Rule 9 ibid recognizes supplementary invoice as the proper document for availment of CENVAT credit b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ement of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement etc., in making payment of such additional duty into the Government exchequer. Therefore, we are also of the considered opinion that taking of CENVAT credit by the recipient units viz., E-60,61,62 and B-82/1 on the basis of the supplementary invoices issued by the manufacturing units is in conformity with the CENVAT statute. There are no merits in the impugned orders, insofar as confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellants are concerned - Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside - the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants. - HON BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Mansi Patil, Advocate for the Appellants Shri C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cost of production of goods commensurate to the expenditure incurred during the relevant period on yearly basis. Accordingly, during the course of investigation, the department had gathered such information and concluded that preparation of CAS-4 for the disputed period, on the basis of the data for the earlier period, had resulted into undervaluation of goods, causing evasion of Central Excise duty. On the basis of investigation, the department had initiated show cause proceedings against the appellants under extended period of limitation, which culminated into the adjudication orders, wherein the original authority vide the impugned orders, both dated 29.03.2014has confirmed the adjudged demands, as proposed for recovery in the Show Cause .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... On the basis of investigation, show cause notices were issued to the appellants, proposing for denial of CENVAT credit, which were adjudicated vide the orders dated 21.01.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Nashik-II and dated 30.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Nashik. The said order dated 30.10.2015 was upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 23.03.2018, by way of rejecting the appeal filed by the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with both the orders dated 21.01.2016 and 23.03.2018 (for short, referred to as the impugned orders ), the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal, which are being numbered as Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sub-rule that whenever any additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer of excisable goods on account of any non-levy or short levy, by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of statute, then taking of CENVAT credit of such additional duty is prohibited. 4.2 In the present case, the books of accounts for the year 2011-2012 were required to be finalized by September, 2012, which was in fact complied with by the appellants inasmuch as such compliance part has not been disputed by the department. Further, we also notice that in the letter dated 15.05.2014, the jurisdictional Range Superintendent had informed his counterpart in the Audit wing, mentio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates