C.C.E. & S.T. Bhopal vs M/S. H E G Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. BPL-EXCUS-000-APP-332-13-14 dated: 28.03.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Bhopal]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.E. & S.T.  Bhopal ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. H E G Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. G R Singh, DR for the Appellants

None for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.15.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52982 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 15.02.2014, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal has set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules by the Adjudicating Authority. The reason assigned for setting aside the penalty amount is that credit has not been taken by reason of fraud, collusion or suppression of facts etc.

2. Heard the Ld. DR for the appellant and perused the records.

3. I find that Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules has been wrongly interpreted by the Commissioner (Appeals), inasmuch as, reason of fraud, collusion or suppression of facts are not the requirement for imposition of penalty under the said rule. Sub rule (1) of Rule 15 can be invoked for imposition of penalty in the eventuality, where the cenvat credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or in contravention of any of the provisions of the said Rules. I find that the respondent was not eligible to take the cenvat credit on the GTA services and since they have taken the credit, the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules have been violated. Thus, the situation warrants imposition of penalty under sub rule (1) of Rule 15 of the said rules.

5. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. The same is set aside. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1