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: (i) whether the wrongly utilised CENVAT credit amount was liable to be confirmed as demand, and (ii) whether penalty was exigible for repeated mis-utilisation of credit contrary to the CENVAT credit rules.
Issue (i): whether the wrongly utilised CENVAT credit amount was liable to be confirmed as demand.
Analysis: The credit was admittedly available to the assessee in the succeeding period, and the early utilisation did not create an additional substantive credit entitlement. On the facts, the Tribunal found no justification to sustain the demand of the wrongly utilised amount.
Conclusion: The demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether penalty was exigible for repeated mis-utilisation of credit contrary to the CENVAT credit rules.
Analysis: The mis-utilisation occurred over several months, so the explanation of a new accountant was not accepted. At the same time, the assessee had sufficient PLA balance and had already paid interest, which justified leniency on quantum of penalty, though some penal action was still warranted for repeated contravention.
Conclusion: Penalty was sustained but reduced to Rs. 10,000 in favour of the assessee to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the demand issue and succeeded only partly on the penalty issue, resulting in a partial relief to the assessee.