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 Overturns Penalties on Appellants, Reduces Penalty to Token Amount</h1> The Tribunal set aside the penalty and interest imposed on the appellants for using capital goods exclusively for exempted goods, as they promptly paid ... - Issues:1. Entitlement to credit for using capital goods exclusively for exempted goods.2. Non-receipt of inputs sent to job worker within the required period.Analysis:1. The case involved two issues. The appellants used capital goods exclusively for exempted goods, leading to a denial of credit of Rs. 8691. The consultant for the appellants argued that the amount had been paid back promptly upon detection by the department, with the appellants maintaining a higher credit balance throughout. Citing a decision from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, it was contended that no penalty or interest should be imposed. The Tribunal found that since the appellants had promptly paid back the amount and had a higher credit balance, they had not wrongly utilized the credit. Therefore, the penalty and interest levied by the lower authorities were set aside.2. Regarding the second amount of Rs. 12,346 related to inputs not received back from the job worker within the required period, the consultant argued that the amount was paid promptly after being pointed out by the department. It was emphasized that this was not a case of wrongful utilization of credit, as the appellants consistently maintained a higher credit balance. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and concluded that while there was no proposal for confiscation, a penalty could be imposed under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, up to the maximum limit of Rs. 10,000. As there was no finding of suppression and the appellants did not wrongly take or utilize the credit, the interest and penalty imposed were set aside. However, a token penalty of Rs. 2000 was determined under Rule 15(1) to meet the ends of justice, resulting in the appeal being partly allowed.