Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2021 (8) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lhi under Membership No. LTU/DEL/-024 dated 22 March, 2010. The appellant was regularly filing their returns and other compliances. 2. During the course of audit, it was observed that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods i.e. transportation of goods. It further appeared to Revenue that the transportation of the goods is beyond the place of removal, on the basis of challans for the period under dispute. It further appeared to Revenue that under the provisions of Rule 2(l) of CCR allows to take credit on outward transportation "up to the place of removal‟, which is the factory gate, in the case of the appellant. Accordingly, three periodical show cause notices were issu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended period of limitation have been rightly invoked. As regards, penalty the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed as follows: "10.1 However, I find that the impugned Adjudication Order has been passed in respect of three show cause notice, out of which the latter two show cause notices dated 25.09.2012 and dated 03.06.2012 were sequel to the first show cause notice dated 15.03.2012, therefore, I am of the view that no suppression of facts were involved in subsequent two show cause notices, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am taking a lenient view as regards imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of the said Cenvat Rules on the Appellant. 10.2 I also find that in respect of the first show cause n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the appellant Shri Ankit Upadhyay inter alia urges that extended period is not invokable in the present case, as issue relates to interpretation of law, as the input credit of outward transportation of goods, several litigation took place before various judicial forums, therefore, no suppression and/or malafide intention is involved. Hence, demand for extended period, and penalty is liable to be set aside. Further the appellant duly mentioned the details of the availment of credit in ER-1 returns regularly filed by them, and there is no other provision of law which prescribes the appellant to mention the details of the credit at any other place, hence no suppression is involved. Thus demand for extended period along with penalty may be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ansportation and handling charges incurred by HML shall be reimbursed by GMI. Payment for all the Powerunits supplied shall be made by the 2nd day of the second month following the date of receipt of Powerunits by GMI. HML shall raise necessary invoice for the purpose. For example supplies in July will get paid by 2nd of September; 5.3 the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will be agreed and signed between GMI and HML at a later date, which shall cover issues related to replacement of short supply/damages/scheduling/inventory norms and various documentation requirement. The SOP when signed will form an integral part of this Agreement. 5.4 The parties understanding on procedure relating to commercial terms such as understa....