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>Modvat credit denial & penalties upheld for lack of documentation. Appeals dismissed, penalties confirmed as mandatory.</h1> <h3>HEG. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR</h3> HEG. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 295 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Disallowance of Modvat credit to the company and imposition of penalties on its employees.Analysis:The main issue in this case pertains to the disallowance of Modvat credit to the company and the imposition of penalties on its employees. The Modvat credit of Rs. 61,588/- was denied to the company on the basis that the goods received were not accompanied by a Modvatable invoice as required by Rule 57G. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were not accompanied by the necessary documentation for claiming the credit, and the subsequent invoice did not reference the earlier delivery challan. As a result, the denial of Modvat credit was deemed valid and upheld.Another contention was raised regarding the penalties imposed on the employees. It was argued that since the Modvat credit was reversed before the issuance of the show cause notice, the penalties should be quashed. However, under Rule 57-I, the imposition of a penalty equal to the wrongfully availed credit is mandatory. The cases cited to support the quashing of penalties were found inapplicable as they were under a different section. Therefore, the penalties imposed on the employees were confirmed as justified.The judgment also addressed the penalties imposed on the Deputy Manager and Commercial Manager of the company. It was noted that they were managing the company's affairs at the time and had taken the Modvat credit illegally to benefit the company. The penalty amount imposed on them was considered reasonable, and no grounds were found to set it aside.In conclusion, the impugned order disallowing the Modvat credit and imposing penalties was upheld, and the appeals of the appellants were dismissed.
TaxTMI 