2026 (6) TMI 1225

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 month of June 2017. However, had short paid the same. It was observed that Rs.1,41,749/- with interest of Rs. 3,660/- was paid on 15.08.2017 against the said liability. Remaining Rs.5,78,251/- was paid vide service tax credit register entry No. 193 dated 20.08.2017. Department also observed that the said amount of credit was wrongly availed and utilized as the same was not available on 30.06.2017. Since it was the clear cut violation of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the duty short paid was recoverable in terms of Rule 8(4) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 that show cause notice was not warranted and the appellant was called upon to deposit the said duty. The appellant instead of complying with the same had filed th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....,319/- only and the balance liability of Rs.7,20,000/- remained unpaid. When the duty remains unpaid, in view of the Rule 8(4) of Rules Central Excise Rules, such dues become recoverable under Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, CBIC also in this regard has clarified that such amounts are required to be accounted for and reported as realisable arrears of revenue and action under Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 can be taken without issuance of show cause notice. Since it being arrears of revenue, the department had correctly initiated action for recovery against the appellant. Therefore, the appellant's contention that show cause issued in the matter is not correct and cannot be entertained. 4.1 With respect of debitin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allenging the same before Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held the appeal before him to not to be maintainable. The order to that extent is upheld. 7. Issue No. 2 The liability of the appellant for the month of June 2017 was 53,01,319/- and Rs.7,20,000/- is alleged to have not been paid out of the said amount. While paying the said remaining amount admittedly the appellant had paid only Rs.1,41,749/- and remaining of Rs.5,78,251/- was debited from the Cenvat credit. No doubt the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Rule 3(4) thereof permits that while paying duty of excise or service tax Cenvat credit can be utilized. However, the provisions makes it clear that the same ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in GST era but the said request was also not considered and that the given circumstances amounts to double taxation. However, I observe that this plea has also been dealt with by Commissioner (Appeals) in Para 10 of the impugned order. It reads as follows: 10. The Appellant on one hand contended before me that they had discharged the Central Excise liability of Ra 5,78,251/- by utilizing the credit of service tax availed after filing of ER-1 returns on 10.07.2017 and on the other hand when I scrutinized whether the Appellant had carry forwarded such credit through TRAN-1 in the GST era, surprisingly I find the Appellant in terms of provisions of Section 140 (5) of CGST Act, 2017 has filed new TRAN-1 on 30.11.2022 claiming credit of....