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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Section 11AC, read with the applicable Central Excise Rules, was sustainable where the assessee had availed Modvat credit on capital goods while having declared that depreciation would not be claimed under the Income-tax Act, but later claimed such depreciation and reversed the credit.
Analysis: The declaration filed by the assessee specifically stated that depreciation under Section 32 of the Income-tax Act would not be claimed in respect of the duty element on capital goods. The subsequent claim of depreciation contradicted that declaration and constituted a misstatement of material facts. The fact that the credit was later reversed did not erase the initial wrongful availment or the penalty liability. The reduced penalty framework under Section 11AC was applicable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had already granted the statutory benefit by restricting the penalty to 25% of the duty involved.
Conclusion: The penalty was held to be leviable, and the assessee was not entitled to complete waiver of penalty. The reduction of penalty to 25% of the duty involved was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Wrongful availment of Modvat credit contrary to a declared undertaking, coupled with misstatement of material facts, attracts penalty under Section 11AC, and subsequent reversal of credit does not by itself extinguish the penal liability.