TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant could restore and avail credit suo motu after reversal of Modvat credit in the absence of setting aside the underlying order confirming duty/proceedings. (ii) Whether the penalty imposed was excessive or called for interference.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant could restore and avail credit suo motu after reversal of Modvat credit in the absence of setting aside the underlying order confirming duty/proceedings.
Analysis: The credit had been reversed in terms of Rule 57C and Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The competent authority had already confirmed the proceedings and directed return of the amount, and that order had not been set aside in appeal or stayed. In that situation, the appellant could not re-credit the amount on its own; the proper course was to pursue the available legal remedies, including refund, in accordance with law.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to take back the credit suo motu.
Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was excessive or called for interference.
Analysis: The penalty was imposed for the appellant's conduct in taking credit on its own after the existing order had remained in force. On the facts recorded, no ground was made out to interfere with the quantum of penalty.
Conclusion: The penalty did not warrant interference and was sustained.
Final Conclusion: The order affirming denial of suo motu credit and sustaining the penalty was maintained, leaving the appellant without relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A party cannot restore credit on its own once a competent order has confirmed the reversal or demand unless that order is first set aside or stayed by the appropriate legal process.
TaxTMI 
