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 credit taken on an invoice issued in the name of the assessee's sister concern was irregular and whether the extended period, interest and penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: Credit under the Cenvat scheme is not admissible where the invoice stands in the name of another person, so the availment was irregular. However, the assessee had recorded the transaction in the prescribed registers and produced it with monthly returns, the inputs were received and used in manufacture, and the department had the relevant information much earlier. On these facts, the wrong invoice description was accepted as a bona fide mistake and no suppression of facts or deliberate contravention was made out to justify the longer limitation period. Once the demand itself was time-barred, the connected claim for interest and penalty could not survive.
Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable; the demand, interest and penalty were unsustainable and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee obtained consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant facts are reflected in the assessee's statutory records and there is no established suppression or wilful contravention, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for recovery of irregular Cenvat credit, with the connected interest and penalty also failing.