1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Tribunal Reduces Penalty in Tax Rule Violation Case</h1> The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed under Rule 57AH(2) of the Modvat Rules from Rs. 17,09,754/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- due to the appellant's voluntary ... Penalty Issues:Application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for dispensing with pre-deposit order and granting stay for recovery of penalty imposed under Rule 57AH(2) of the Modvat Rules.Analysis:The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal confirming a penalty of Rs. 17,09,754/- imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant argued that the penalty and interest were not justified, citing precedents like CCE v. M/s. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. and M/s. Emmellen Biotech v. CCE, Mumbai-VII. They contended that since they had reversed excess credit before the Show Cause Notice, no penalty or interest should be levied. The Tribunal noted the appellant's voluntary reversal of credit and lack of evidence of Departmental intervention in the reversal process.The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's proactive reversal of excess credit and their claim of no suppression of facts regarding filing requirements under the new CENVAT Rules. It observed that the appellant was a professionally managed company with qualified officers, implying no intentional non-compliance with Central Excise law. The Tribunal differentiated Modvat credit from duty, stating that the decision in M/s. Machino Montell (India) Limited's case did not directly apply. Consequently, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from 100% to Rs. 1,00,000/-, considering the recovery already made with interest.In conclusion, the Tribunal found that a 100% penalty imposition was unjustified given the circumstances, especially with the recovery already effected with interest. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.