TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether penalty for non-filing of ER-6 returns under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be imposed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and whether the penalty was liable to be restricted to the general penalty provided under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Analysis: The default found against the appellant was the failure to file ER-6 returns required under Rule 9A(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. For a contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules for which no specific penalty is provided, Rule 15A prescribes a general penalty up to Rs. 5,000. The penalties imposed under Rule 27 and Rule 12(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were held to be impermissible for a violation governed by the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Conclusion: The penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was set aside and replaced by a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under Rule 15A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
TaxTMI 
