TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal confirms Cenvat Credit reversal, sets aside interest & penalty in tax dispute case</h1> <h3>CCE, Allahabad Versus UP State Sugar Corp. Ltd.</h3> CCE, Allahabad Versus UP State Sugar Corp. Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Confirmation of Cenvat Credit demand without mention in show cause notice.2. Imposition of interest and penalty on reversed Cenvat Credit amount.3. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside demand.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the confirmation of Cenvat Credit demand without specific mention in the show cause notice. The respondent had transferred Cenvat capital goods to another unit without reversing the appropriate amount of Cenvat Credit. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the Cenvat Credit demand and imposed interest and penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand, citing lack of mention in the show cause notice. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that since the Cenvat Credit had already been reversed and not proposed for recovery in the notice, confirming the demand was unnecessary. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on this issue was upheld.2. The appellant argued that interest and penalty were justified despite the reversed Cenvat Credit payment. The Departmental Representative contended that interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules were warranted. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing a Supreme Court judgment that interest is attracted in cases of wrong availment of Cenvat Credit, but penalty may not be applicable in certain circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the interest and penalty, except for the interest portion, which was restored based on the original adjudicating authority's order.3. The appellant further challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the demand, leading to an appeal by the revenue and a cross-objection by the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that since the Cenvat Credit had been reversed before the show cause notice and was not proposed for recovery, confirming the demand was unnecessary. Therefore, the Tribunal disposed of the Revenue's appeal by upholding most of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, except for setting aside the interest, which was restored based on the original adjudicating authority's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
