2026 (4) TMI 944

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....06.2018 whereby the Ld. Commissioner of CGST & CX (Appeal-I), Kolkata, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107 has upheld the Order-in-Original No. 06/Addl. Commr./CE/Kol-V/Adjn/2016 dated 28.01.2016. 2. The facts of the case are that officers of the Anti-Evasion Unit of the Kolkata-V Commissionerate visited the factory premises and corporate office of the appellant herein on 25.03.2014. On verification of the records of the appellant, it was alleged that a part of the total CENVAT Credit utilized by the appellant was ineligible as per Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant reversed such amount of credit, being the ineligible credit availed by them as pointed out by the Audit / Anti-Evasion wing. Howev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... availed on carriage outward 2009-10 to 2013-14 7,53,934/- Entire reversal made on 26.04.2014 which stands admitted in page 5 of SCN CENVAT Credit availed on input partially written off 2011-12 13,884/- Entire reversal made on 14.04.2014 which stands admitted in page 6 of SCN 4.1. The submission of the appellant is that they have reversed the above credit availed as and when the issue was pointed out by the Audit / Anti-Evasion wing and that they have reversed the entire credit before issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The appellant submits that they have duly filed their ER-1 Returns and intimated the availment of credit in the Returns. Thus, the appellant submits that the element of suppression of facts with the in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gular credit availed was reversed along with interest, there was no need to issue the Show Cause Notice in terms of Section 11A(1)(b) and 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for the purpose of imposition of penalty on them under Rule 15(2) of the said Rules. Accordingly, it is their plea that the penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the said Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act is not sustainable and hence, have prayed for setting aside the same. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue supported the imposition of penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of the appeal. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 7. We find that, admittedly, the appellant has rev....