TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate tribunal overturns penalties for Modvat credit under DEEC QABAL scheme, citing unjustified discrepancies.</h1> <h3>RIKVIN FLOORS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD</h3> RIKVIN FLOORS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 382 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Availing Modvat credit under DEEC QABAL scheme.2. Show cause notice for demand confirmation, balance credit availed, and penalty imposition.3. Commissioner's order confirming demand and imposing penalty.4. Appeal challenging the Commissioner's order.Analysis:Issue 1: Availing Modvat credit under DEEC QABAL schemeThe appellants, manufacturers of Quartz Reinforced Vinyl Flooring, availed Modvat credit on raw materials procured under the DEEC QABAL scheme. They exported materials before importing raw materials by quoting the DEEC license number on shipping bills. The appellants transferred some licenses to another company and imported PVC for their own use under certain licenses. However, they later realized the error and took steps to rectify it by re-crediting the Modvat credits.Issue 2: Show cause notice for demand confirmation, balance credit availed, and penalty impositionA show cause notice was issued to the appellants, requiring them to explain why certain amounts should not be confirmed under the Central Excise Rules and why penalties should not be imposed for contravention of various rules and regulations. The appellants submitted their responses, detailing the credits availed and the actions taken to rectify the situation.Issue 3: Commissioner's order confirming demand and imposing penaltyThe Commissioner confirmed the demand for a specific amount without addressing certain aspects raised by the appellants. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed under relevant rules and the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants appealed against this order, challenging the findings and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.Issue 4: Appeal challenging the Commissioner's orderUpon reviewing the submissions from both sides, the appellate tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner's order. It was observed that certain contraventions alleged by the Commissioner were not substantiated, and penalties imposed were deemed unjustified. The tribunal concluded that penalties under the Central Excise Rules and the Customs Act were not warranted based on the circumstances presented. The appeal was allowed, and the penalties imposed were set aside, providing the appellants with consequential relief.In summary, the appellate tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues raised in the case led to the setting aside of the penalties imposed by the Commissioner, highlighting discrepancies in the findings and the unjustified nature of the penalties under the relevant laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
