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 grants relief on cenvat credit dispute citing compliance and bonafide belief</h1> <h3>M/s. Intolcast Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Rajkot</h3> M/s. Intolcast Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Rajkot - TMI Issues:1. Demand of wrongly utilized cenvat credit under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Imposition of interest and penalties on the main appellant and the Director.3. Interpretation of the judgment in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-II vs. Inductotherm (I) Pvt. Limited.4. Applicability of limitation on the demands raised.Analysis:Issue 1: Demand of wrongly utilized cenvat creditThe main appellant was found purchasing aluminium moulds from the open market and recovering the cost from clients through Central Excise invoices. The appellant paid duty from the Cenvat account, leading to a show cause notice for demanding wrongly utilized cenvat credit under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, imposed interest, and penalties. The first appellate authority upheld the decision. The appellant argued bonafide belief in paying duty and cited a High Court judgment. The Tribunal noted the appellant's compliance with filing excise returns and the absence of objections from the Revenue for several years. The Tribunal found the demands hit by limitation and set them aside.Issue 2: Interest and penaltiesSince the demands were set aside due to limitation, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalties on the appellants did not arise. The Tribunal did not address these aspects further.Issue 3: Interpretation of the Inductotherm caseThe Tribunal differentiated the case at hand from the Inductotherm case, emphasizing the specific provisions invoked in the show cause notice. While the Inductotherm case involved Section 11D, the current case invoked Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's case on limitation was strong, leading to the setting aside of the demands.Issue 4: Applicability of limitationThe Tribunal extensively analyzed the limitation aspect, considering the appellant's consistent reporting in excise returns, lack of objections from Revenue, and the Director's statements acknowledging bonafide belief in paying duty. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' findings on limitation to be presumptive and unsupported by facts. Consequently, the demands were set aside based on the limitation argument presented by the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowed the appeals, and provided relief to the appellants due to the demands being hit by limitation. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correct invocation of provisions in show cause notices and upheld the appellant's argument on bonafide belief and compliance with excise reporting requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
