2019 (5) TMI 916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Rs. 6,53,84,103/- against the assessees in terms of Explanation III under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. (b) I order recovery of interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,53,84,103/- from the assessee under Rule 14 from the assessee under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (c) I impose Penalty of Rs. 6,53,84,103/- on the assessee under Rule 15(4) {Rule 15 (3) w.e.f 27.02.2010} of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994." 2.1 Appellants had Centralized Registration for providing taxable services under the category of "Ban....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to show cause as to why- a. An amount of Rs. 6,53,84,103 should not be recovered from them under the provisions of Explanation III under Rule 6(3) read with Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. b. Interest should not be recovered on the aforesaid amount under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. c. Penalty should not be imposed under Rule 15(4) {Rule 15(3) w.e.f 27.02.2010} of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. d. Penalty should not be imposed under Rule 15A of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2.7 After considering the submissions made by the appellants and affording the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to issue of show cause notice, and hence they had no intention to evade payment of taxes. v. Since they are not required to pay any amount no interest is demandable. vi. Since they had no intention to avail the ineligible credit the penalty imposed on them is not justified. 4.1 We have heard Shri R S Indani, Advocate for the Appellant and Shri M. Suresh, Joint Commissioner Authorized Representative for the revenue. 5.1 We have considered the submissions made by the appellants in appeal and during the course of argument along with impugned order. 5.2 We find the issues raised in the present appeal are identical to those decided by CESTAT in case of- i. UCO Bank [2014 (36) STR 1169 (T-Kol)] ii. HD....