Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Utsah Engg P Ltd vs Noida on 25 October, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
COURT No. I
APPEAL No. E/70313/2018-EX[SM]
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 03/2018 dated 15/01/2018 passed by
Commissioner CGST Audit, Noida)
M/s. Utash Engg. P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner CGST, Noida Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) AR for Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 13/09/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25/10/2018 FINAL ORDER NO 72489 / 2018 Per: Archana Wadhwa The challenge in the present appeal is to penalty of Rs.5,66,319/- imposed upon the appellant under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Ruels, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to wrong availment of Cenvat Credit paid on Man Power Services. The said credit stands taken by the appellant twice, which discrepancy was detected by the audit. Further the appellant had taken Cenvat Credit of Rs.66,102/- on various input 2 APPEAL No. E/70313/2018-EX[SM] services which have been held to be ineligible input service or inputs.
3. It is seen that appellant accepted the said mistake on the part of their dealing clerk and reversed the credit along with interest. In such scenario it is the contention of the assessee that since there was no mala fide, the imposition of penalty upon them is not justified.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that it was a mistake on the part of the employee responsible for maintaining the Cenvat records. Inasmuch as the credit was availed by reflecting the same in the cenvat account, it cannot be held to be a result of any mala fide intent. In such cases of inadvertent mistake, the Tribunal has held that a lenient view is required to be adopted and the assessed having reversed the credit along with interest, further penalty should not be imposed upon them.
5. It is seen that Tribunal in the case of Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. vs. C.C.E, C. & S.T., Bangalore-I reported at 2015 (322) E.L.T. 540 (Tri.-Bang.) has dealt with an identical situation in a case of credit taken twice, and observed that the same stands reversed by the assessee along with interest and in the absence of any mala fide, the appellant deserves a lenient view. By observing so the Tribunal set aside the 3 APPEAL No. E/70313/2018-EX[SM] penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
6. Inasmuch as in the present case also I find that the credit stands availed by the assessee twice, which seems to be an inadvertent mistake on the part of their employee, imposition of penalty upon them is not justified. Accordingly, I set aside the same and allow the appeal to that extent.
(Pronounced in Court 25.10.2018) Sd/-
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Ankit