Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
M/S. RAIL TECH & ANOTHER V/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ANOTHER, decided on Tuesday, January 28, 2014.
[ In the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi, Excise Appeal No. 322 & 516 of 2011- ST[SM] [Arising Out of Order-In-Appeal No. 276/CE/Ldh/10 dated 29.11.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh], Excise Appeal No. 322 of 2011- Ex [SM], Excise Appeal No. 516 of 2011- Ex[SM]. ] 28/01/2014
Judge(s) : MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Advocate(s) : Sudhir Malhotra. DR. U K. Srivastava.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-


  Shaik Akram & Others Versus The National Investigation Agency Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh,   20/01/2017.  

  Ultra Tech Cement Limited represented by its Duly Authorised Power of Attorney Holder O.M. Prakash Rathi Deputy Manager (Finance & Commercial) Versus The Union of India represented by The Secretary & Others,   03/09/2014.  

  Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others,   13/08/2010.  

  LEAAP FORWARDERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS ,   11/04/2001.  




#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    Subject     Archana Wadhwa J.1. The appellants is engaged in the manufacture of railway parts falling under Chapter 86 of Central Excise and Tariff Act. The goods were being supplied by them exclusively to the railways.2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs so received by them. It is seen that the appellants took excess credit of Rs. 1 81 206/-. The said credit was availed by them by adopting the assessable value instead of duty paid. The appellants admitted their mistake and on being pointed out by the Revenue they reversed the credit along with interest of Rs. 14 800/-.3. In the above scenario it is the contention of the appellant that no penalty should be imposed upon them inasmuch as the mistake was an inadvertent error on the part of the person maintaining the records.4. I agree with the above contention of the appellants. Admittedly taking credit equivalent to the value of the goods in respect of duty of excise reflected in the said invoice can be said to be a mistake only.5. Inasmuch as the said mistake is liable to be detected either by the Central Excise Officers or by the Audit the appellant have already suffered by payment of interest to the extent of Rs.14 800/-As such I set aside the imposition of penalty on the above count.6. It is further seen that lower authorities have denied Cenvat credit of Rs.48 683/- availed by the appellant on the basis of invoice no. 9039 dated 4.5.2007 issued by the input supplier. Neither is it clear from the impugned order or from the memo of appeal as to why the said credit has been held to inadmissible. The lower authorities have simplicitor observed that same is excess Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. On the other hand the appellant has contended in their memo of appeal that credit against the said invoice was correctly taken and the Revenue has not considered the amount of ACD paid at the time of import. In the absence of any clarity on the above issue I set aside the impugned order to that extent and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the said disputed quantum of Rs. 48 683/- after giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forth their case.7. In view of the above the appeal is partly allowed and party remanded.