2017 (11) TMI 1569

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalties imposed. 4. Learned Counsel submits that in the show cause notice there is an allegation that during the period 18.03.2010 to 02.03.2012 on 6 different occasions, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit twice on the documents. It is his submission on being pointed that they have availed ineligible of CENVAT credit of Rs. 33,17,076/-, they paid Rs. 26,88,653/- in cash and balance amount of Rs. 6,28,453/during the period in April 2015. It is his submission that they have also discharged total duty along with applicable interest. It is his submission is that transactions of availment of CENVAT credit in appellants factory being voluminous the error of availing credit twice over is a clerical error. There is no intention on part o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the issue in hand, as appellant is an unit in the organized sector. I concur with the findings. reproduce the findings of the First Appellate Authority which in paragraph 5: "5. I have considered the submissions made in the appeal memorandum and those made during the personal hearing held in the matter. The issue to be decided in this appeal is about the correctness of the equivalent penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC(l)(c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 by the original authority. The appellant has admitted that there was irregular availment of credit of duty on 6 documents and accordingly reversed them, partly immediately and the rest after sometime. From the perusal of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount as per the documents. This failure of taking unrelated amounts in excess and which is in excess of what is available on documents like Bill of Entry or invoices, in my view, becomes more serious when one considers that their failure continued for a long period of 21/2 years until it was pointed out by the departmental officers during the audit of the accounts of the appellant. It is unusual that neither their own internal audit nor external auditors detected such obvious errors on record. In this background, such failure is to be considered as intentional. The reversal of the amount by the appellant on being pointed out by the Department cannot, therefore, be a sufficient reason not to penalize such blatant act of taking ineligible cr....