TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. Also, during the period June 2005 to May 2007 they have received small quantity of Electric Meter for trading purpose and the same were traded. In the manufacture and trading of the said electric meters, they had availed CENVAT credit paid on the input Services viz. G.T.A. Service and business auxiliary services. On being pointed out by Audit they had reversed the proportionate CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.3,41,397/- on 10.07.2007 availed on the traded goods and also, paid the interest of Rs.10,477/- on 20.09.2007. A Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 10.02.2009 proposing penalty under section 11AC and also proposing as to why extended period of five years should not be invoked under section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. On a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufactured gods were duly accounted for in the CENVAT Credit register and the CENVAT Credit availed on the input services, were duly reflected in their monthly returns filed with the department. Therefore, there is no suppression of fact. Further he has submitted that in view of the provisions of section 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944, since the wrong credit pointed out by the CERA Audit was due to their a bona fide mistake, and immediately paid by them, the department ought not have issued the show cause notice proposing penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. In this regard, he has referred to the judgement of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd. 2011 (267....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his rejoinder ld.Chartered Accountant submitted that the reference to the judgement in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra) is out of place, as in the said judgement the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle of law and the same when applied to the facts of the present case, no penalty could be imposable under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. Heard both sides and perused the record. Undisputedly the appellant had received input services viz. GTA and Business Auxiliary Service and used the same in or in relation to the manufacture and trading of Electric Meters. It is also not in dispute that credit of Rs.3,41,397/- availed by the appellant on the said input services were not exclusively used in o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be reasoned that the deficiency was due to mala fide intention on the part of assessee. I find that Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in Geneva Fine Punch Enclosures Ltd. (cited supra) case taking into consideration the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills case had observed as follows:- 6. Therefore, the determination of liability to pay duty is a condition precedent for imposing penalty. If after demand of duty if the assessee without contesting the claim voluntarily pays the duty and interest payable thereon for the delay in payment of duty on the stipulated day, the question of the Officer determining the duty payable would not arise, It is only in cases duty is determined coupled with the fa....