2017 (6) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med for consideration by this Court: "Whether the order of the learned Tribunal holding penalty imposable on placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s.Ind-Swift Laboratories P. Ltd. reported in 2011 (265) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) is sustainable when the Tribunal has passed the impugned order overlooking the fact the Hon'ble Apex Court has not dealt with the issue of imposition of penalty" 3.In order to adjudicate upon the appeal, the following brief facts are required to be noticed: 3.1.The Assessee i.e., Shree Ambika Sugars Limited was in the business, at the relevant time, of manufacturing sugar and molasses. It appears that an audit was conducted by the Revenue, which resulted in revelation of the fact that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Appeals) [in short, Commissioner (Appeals)]. The appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed and the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority was confirmed. 5. This led to the Assessee preferring a second appeal, this time, to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in the first instance, vide order dated 21.02.2011, allowed the appeal of the Assessee. The order of the Tribunal is rather cryptic and was pivoted, essentially on the decision rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of: CCE Delhi Vs. Maruti Udyog Limited, 2007 (214) ELT 173 (P & H). The Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the Assessee was not liable to pay interest, it could not be held liable to pay penalty. Based on this reasoning, the Tribunal also set a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;s submission that the Tribunal had to examine in the facts and circumstances of the case, as to whether the excess cenvat credit was taken by the Assessee, on account of mistake or as alleged was an act of deliberate deception. 7.4. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that the excess credit was taken by the Assessee, on account of mistake. 7.5. For this purpose, learned counsel relies upon paragraph no.4.1 of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, learned counsel's submission, is that, the Tribunal, inter alia, had to examine not only the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, as it obtained at the relevant point of time, but also the provisions of Section 11AC of the Cen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aragraph 21, are set out hereafter: "21.This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S.Balram v. M/s.Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. As stated hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Similarly, this Court has decided in ITO v. Ashok Textiles, 41 ITR 732 that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, in....