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

March 2016

[2016-TIOL-374-CESTAT-DEL] M/s Umax Packaging Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur-II

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
In absence of any proof of evidence of any suppression, misstatement and collusion with intent to evade payment of duty invocation of longer period of limitation and penalties for normal period not justified.

Facts
Appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods availed CENVAT credit on certain disputed goods which was objected by the department and was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by invoking extended period of limitation.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that the dispute regarding eligibility of CENVAT credit of the goods had not attained finality and there were conflicting decisions on the issue and therefore the Appellant could have entertained a reasonable belief that credit was allowable. Further in absence of any evidence brought on record to prove suppression, misstatement, collusion etc. extended period cannot be invoked. The demand is confirmed for the normal period along with interest setting aside penalty.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

[2016-TIOL-400-CESTAT-MUM] PrecisionMetals vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

TS-62-ITAT-2016 (CHNY) Foster Wheeler France SA vs. DDIT A.Ys.: 2008-09 & 2009-10, Date of Order: 5th February, 2016