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>Appellate tribunal rules in favor of appellant, clarifies reduced penalties under CENVAT Credit Rules.</h1> <h3>M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad</h3> M/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Hyderabad - TMI Issues:1. Applicability of reduced penalty under Section 11AC(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Interpretation of penalty provisions under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.3. Compliance with penalty payment within the specified timeframe.Analysis:1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the appellant's entitlement to a reduced penalty of 25% under Section 11AC(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had availed CENVAT credit on invoices issued prior to the relevant notification, leading to a show cause notice for recovery. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which was challenged on the grounds of reduced penalty applicability.2. The learned Counsel highlighted the provisions of Section 11AC and Rule 15(1), emphasizing the applicability of reduced penalties post a specific date. The Adjudicating Authority's penalty imposition was based on Rule 15(1) read with Section 11AC(1)(b), leading to a penalty of 10% of the total demand. The relevant legal provisions were thoroughly examined to determine the correct application of penalties in the given scenario.3. The appellate tribunal carefully considered the timeline of penalty payment and the appellant's compliance with the specified requirements. The appellant had paid 25% of the penalty amount within 30 days of receiving the Order-in-Original, demonstrating adherence to the provisions of Section 11AC(1)(b). Consequently, the tribunal modified the impugned order, holding that the appellant was not liable for any further penalty, thereby closing the case in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the applicability of reduced penalties under Section 11AC(1)(b) in cases involving penalty imposition under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with penalty payment requirements as stipulated by the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
