Appeal allowed due to lack of fraudulent intent. Section 11A(2B) applied, matter closed without notice. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, finding no evidence of fraudulent intent or suppression. Due to duty payment post-error ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal allowed due to lack of fraudulent intent. Section 11A(2B) applied, matter closed without notice.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, finding no evidence of fraudulent intent or suppression. Due to duty payment post-error detection and pre-show cause notice, Section 11A(2B) applied, leading to closure of the matter without notice issuance. Precedents cited by the Department were deemed inapplicable due to lack of evidence of clandestine removal, resulting in no merit found in the impugned order.
Issues: - Cenvat credit availed without payment of Central Excise duty - Alleged clandestine removal of goods without issuing Central Excise invoices - Application of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944
Analysis: - The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Insulators, availed cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs. The Audit Wing observed removal of pig iron and iron scrap without duty payment. Show Cause Proceedings led to a demand of Rs. 1,65,150/- with penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, leading to the present appeal. - The appellant's advocate argued inadvertent error in not issuing Central Excise Invoices, clarifying no intention to defraud revenue. The Director confirmed the mistake. Payment of duty with interest pre-show cause notice was highlighted for Section 11A(2B) benefit. - The Department, represented by the D.R., cited precedents to justify penalty imposition even if duty is paid post-detection. The Tribunal noted lack of evidence for clandestine removal and the goods were cleared under tax invoices with VAT payment. - The Tribunal found no evidence of fraudulent intent or suppression by the appellant. Due to duty payment post-error detection and pre-show cause notice, Section 11A(2B) applied, requiring closure of the matter without notice issuance. Precedents cited by the Department were deemed inapplicable due to lack of evidence of clandestine removal in this case. - Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
