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 overturns penalty for double credit error, citing lack of intent to evade duty.</h1> <h3>FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE, INDIA P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., S.T. & CUS., BANGALORE-II</h3> FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE, INDIA P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., S.T. & CUS., BANGALORE-II - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 558 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Double credit taken on the same document during 2005-2006.2. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The officers found instances of double credit taken on the same document by the appellants during 2005-2006. The Manager-Excise of the appellant admitted to these instances, attributing them to bona fide mistakes due to manual record maintenance and a large volume of documents. Despite the appellant's prompt payment with interest before the show-cause notice, proceedings were initiated, resulting in the confirmation of demand, appropriation of amounts paid, and the imposition of an equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The appellant contended that the mistakes were unintentional, as evidenced by the immediate payment post-detection, indicating no intention to evade duty. The appellant argued that there was no evidence of intent to evade duty, as the requirement to provide Cenvat credit invoice-wise and document-wise was not breached. The Manager-Excise's statement supported the claim of a bona fide mistake caused by manual record-keeping and a high document volume. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's position, noting the absence of evidence indicating an intent to evade duty. Consequently, the mandatory penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 