75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

August 2013

2013-TIOL-518-HC-MAD-CX Comm. Of C. Ex., Salem vs. Crocodile India Pvt. Ltd.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Inadmissible CENVAT credit – Reversal before utilisation thereof and before issue of SCN- No Penalty.
Facts:

The respondent a manufacturer of readymade garments claimed inadmissible credit of Rs. 15,07,414/- and subsequently reversed the same, evidently before the issue of SCN. The department confirmed interest and penalty although the assessee did not utilise credit and reversed immediately on receipt of intimation about the error. In absence of any other intention of wrongful gain, the Tribunal set aside the levy of penalty. The revenue challenges it in this appeal.

Held:
Undoubtedly, the respondents claimed inadmissible CENVAT and reversed the same before the issue of Show Cause Notice. Further, the Show Cause Notice being bereft of detailing grounds for imposing penalty under Rule 13(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and following the decision of UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) wherein it was pointed out that application of section 11AC would depend on existence or of conditions expressly stated in the said section, the appeal was dismissed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

Industrial Undertaking – Deduction u/s. 80 HH and 80-I – Neither section 80HH nor section 80-I (as it stood in assessment year 1992-93) statutorily obliged an assessee to maintain its accounts unit-wise and it was open to maintain accounts in a consolidated form from which unit-wise profits could be worked out for computing deduction u/s. 80HH/80I.

2013 (30) STR 458 (Tri-Del)-Air India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi.