1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal upholds penalty for wrongly availed credit under Cenvat Credit Rules</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, upholding the penalty imposed on the applicant under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for wrongly ... Rectification of mistake - the order dated 24/08/2017 records that no evidence has been given in support of the assertion that the appellant had not utilised the credit - Held that: - the liability of interest cannot be set aside, even if the appellants have not utilised the credit. It is seen that the show-cause notice does not specifically say that the appellants have mis-declared the price or committed fraud, etc. The appellant had taken 14 times and the consumption cannot be a clerical mistake which is apparent from the number of appellants have taken credit wrongly - ROM application dismissed. Issues: Liability of interest on wrongly availed credit, applicability of Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, interpretation of judicial precedentsIn this case, the applicant filed a ROM application against an order imposing penalty under Section 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for wrongly availed credit. The applicant argued that evidence showing non-utilization of credit was submitted promptly after the hearing, and no allegations of mis-declaration or fraud were made in the notice. The AR, however, contended that interest is payable even if credit is not utilized, citing judicial precedents. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions, noting the distinction made by the High Court in a previous case and the applicability of Rule 15 (2). The Tribunal observed that even without specific allegations of mis-declaration, the evidence of inadmissible credit taken by the applicant justified the penalty. The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, emphasizing the repeated instances of wrongly availed credit as clear evidence against the applicant, leading to the conclusion that the penalty was justified. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 28/12/2017.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
