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 was sustainable where modvat credit had been taken and utilized, the inputs were later destroyed or rendered unusable, and the reversal of credit was not disclosed to the department.
Analysis: The liability to reverse credit arose once the inputs became unusable and the credit already availed had been utilized towards duty on final products. The fact that the balance sheet referred to disposal of raw materials did not amount to disclosure of the obligation to reverse the credit or of the actual utilization of the credit already taken. Since the appellant did not reverse the credit or repay the amount even after the inputs were destroyed and the factory reopened, the non-disclosure of the relevant fact to the department constituted suppression. Penalty under the relevant Modvat and Cenvat provisions follows where credit is taken or utilized wrongly on account of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.
Conclusion: The penalty was rightly imposed and the challenge to the impugned order failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where credit already availed is utilized and the inputs later become unusable, failure to reverse the credit and disclose that liability to the department amounts to suppression of facts and attracts penalty under the provisions governing wrong availment or wrong utilization of credit.