TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>CESTAT Bangalore: Appellant wins CENVAT credit case; Penalty not sustained</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the appellant regarding eligibility for CENVAT credit on specific items used in the fabrication ... Eligibility for CENVAT credit – Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat credit Rules 2004 r.w. Section 11AC CE Act - Whether the assessee would be eligible for cenvat credit on angles/channels, MS sheets, plates, etc., used in the factory for fabrication – Held that:- The original authority had dropped the penalty and also there is no clear allegation of suppression or fraud other than the cited Rule 15 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - there need not be any pre-deposit in the case - complete waiver granted and stay against recovery during the pendency of the appeal – stay granted. Issues involved: Eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit on angles/channels, MS sheets, plates, etc., used in the factory for fabrication.Analysis:The judgment delivered by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore focused on the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit on specific items used in the fabrication process. The appellant did not dispute the liability and promptly paid the entire amount of CENVAT credit with interest once the issue was raised. The learned counsel argued that the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should not be sustained as there was no clear allegation of suppression or mis-declaration in the show-cause notice. However, the show-cause notice did cite Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, along with Section 11AC, which was pointed out by the learned AR.The original authority had initially dropped the penalty, and considering that there was no clear allegation of suppression or fraud apart from the reference to Rule 15 and Section 11AC, the Tribunal decided that no pre-deposit was necessary in this case. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a complete waiver and stay against recovery during the appeal process. The case was deemed suitable for hearing before a Single Member due to its nature, and it was scheduled to be listed for a hearing in due course. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by B.S.V. Murthy, as per the order of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
