TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit taken on yarn could be adjusted where the Revenue alleged that the yarn was removed as such under fictitious invoices showing manufacture of fabrics; (ii) Whether the applicant was liable to interest and whether immunity could be granted from penalty and prosecution in settlement proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit taken on yarn could be adjusted where the Revenue alleged that the yarn was removed as such under fictitious invoices showing manufacture of fabrics.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the legal effect of the allegation that the inputs were not used in manufacture but were removed as such. Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 permits utilisation of credit for payment of duty where inputs are removed as such. On the facts accepted for settlement, the Revenue's own case was that the yarn was removed as such and that no manufacture of fabrics had occurred. In that situation, insisting on separate cash payment for the same duty element would amount to double duty. The demand was therefore treated as revenue neutral to that extent, and the applicant was held entitled to adjustment of the credit already utilised.
Conclusion: The adjustment of the utilised CENVAT credit was permitted and the Revenue's contention requiring separate cash payment was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was liable to interest and whether immunity could be granted from penalty and prosecution in settlement proceedings.
Analysis: Since there had been short payment to the extent of the debit entry of Rs. 52,29,337/-, interest was warranted for delayed payment. At the same time, the applicant had cooperated in the proceedings and made full disclosure, which justified granting limited relief in the form of a reduced interest burden and immunities available in settlement under the Act. The Commission also exercised its power to grant immunity from penalty and prosecution.
Conclusion: Interest was imposed at 10% per annum on the short-paid amount, with immunity from interest beyond that rate, and immunity from penalty and prosecution was granted to the applicant and the co-applicant.
Final Conclusion: The settlement was allowed on terms that upheld adjustment of the disputed credit, required limited interest on the short-paid amount, and granted immunity from penalty and prosecution, thereby bringing the matter to a final close in favour of the assessee in substantial part.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the Revenue's own case is that inputs were removed as such, Rule 3(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 permits utilisation of the credit already taken, and insistence on separate cash recovery for the same duty element would amount to impermissible double duty.
TaxTMI 
