Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ssb Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E., Jaipur-I on 17 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 17.01.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/769/2011 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.544(DKV)CE/JPR-I/2010, dated 16.12.2010 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Jaipur-I]
M/s. SSB Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance Shri S.C. Kamra, Advocate - for the appellants Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.50172/2014, dated 17.01.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to is availment of CENVAT credit Rs.2,41,402/- availed by the appellant for the period November, 2006 to April, 2007 on the ground that the various iron and steel items used for fabrication for factory shed were not entitled to avail CENVAT credit.
2. Ld. Advocate submits that in terms of law declared by the larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global, the amendment made in the definition of inputs with effect from 07.07.2009 has been held to be retrospective. As such, he submits that the appellant is not disputing the confirmation of demand which already stands paid by them along with interest, even before the issuance of Show Cause Notice.
3. The only challenge is that the penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that the law was declared subsequently by the decision of Larger Bench of Tribunal and during the relevant period, there were decisions in favour of the appellant, as such there is no mala fide intention attributed by them.
4. I agree with the contention of the Ld. Advocate. It is a well settled law that when during the relevant period, the decisions of the higher authorities were in favour of the appellant, the appellant cannot be held liable for any mala fide intention in entertaining a view in his favour. As such, I find there is no justification for invocation of penal provisions against the appellant. Accordingly, while confirming the duty and interest as not contested, I set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant and allow the appeal to that extent.
5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-