2026-VIL-1851-CESTAT-ALH-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1851-CESTAT-ALH-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Disregard of remand directions by adjudicating authority on proportionate CENVAT Credit reversal under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Tribunal in the earlier round remanded the demand on common inputs and input services with a direction to verify the reversal of proportionate credit and extend the benefit - Adjudicating authority in de novo proceedings did not verify the quantum of credit reversed and re-confirmed the demand as the procedure under Rule 6 was not followed - Whether an order passed in de novo proceedings contrary to the directions of the Tribunal can be upheld - HELD - Rule 6 only gives an option to the Appellant and does not confer any right on the Department to recover duty, and reversal of CENVAT Credit tantamount to non-availment of CENVAT Credit. The Appellant had reversed proportionate credit and the adjudicating authority did not dispute the reversal. Instead of verifying the quantum reversed, the adjudicating authority again invoked Rule 6 and decided the issue in terms of the SCN disregarding the directions of the Bench. Such an approach is not acceptable following the principles of judicial discipline, and an order contrary to the directions of the Bench cannot be upheld - The order is set aside to that extent and the appeal is allowed - Extended period of limitation and cum-duty benefit on demand of duty on printed goods cleared at concessional rate and on goods allegedly misclassified - Demand was raised on diaries, letter pads and printed carry bags cleared under a different tariff heading, and on printed calendars, cards, envelopes and notebooks cleared at concessional rate while availing CENVAT Credit, by invoking the extended period - Whether the extended period can be invoked and whether cum-duty benefit is available on the duty confirmed - HELD - The Appellant had been regularly giving declarations, filing returns and was audited from time to time. The Bench in the earlier round had held that classification was a bona fide issue, so the extended period cannot be invoked. The same logic applies to the demand on printed calendars, cards, envelopes and notebooks, which must be confined to the normal period. The Appellant is also entitled to cum-duty benefit on the duty confirmed - All the demands are restricted to the normal period and cum-duty benefit is to be extended - Imposition of penalty on the manufacturer and on its Director in de novo proceedings - Penalties were imposed on the Appellant company and its Director on the demands of duty and under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Whether penalties are imposable in the absence of suppression or mens rea - HELD - The Tribunal in the earlier round had set aside the penalty on the Appellant as there was no mala fide. There is no allegation or evidence of mens rea in respect of the remaining demands. For the same reasons, penalty cannot be imposed on the Director - All the penalties are set aside, the appeal of the company is partly allowed and the appeal of the Director is allowed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Adjudication & Appeals Reform
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?