M/S. Rail Tech and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Another

M/S. Rail Tech and Another vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi Decided Jan 28, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1150084

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1150084
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Justice Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Decided On: Jan 28, 2014
Case Number: 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]
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S. Rail Tech and Another

Respondent

Commissioner of Central Excise and Another

Excerpt

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.....

Full Judgment

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.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Prin... Same Parties M/S. Rail Tech and Another vs Commissioner of Central Excise ... Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Justice Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)