Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
Balamurugan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of CCST & Central Excise – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessee challenged cestat penalty order on cenvat credit misuse. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. scn failed to specify s.11ac limb; duty paid pre-notice. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. suppression via capital goods clearance without payment. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 4. s.11ac(1)(c) applies for suppression; no reduced penalty. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. suppression confirmed; appeal dismissed upholding penalty. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The appellant company has assailed the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (CESTAT) made in final order No.41626/2021 dated 01.07.2021.
2. The appellant, who is the assessee was subjected to central excise audit conducted during the months of February 2017 and April 2017. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the assessee has availed CENVAT credit on excise duty paid on capital goods purchased during the year 2013-14. The assessee had availed CENVAT credit on 50% of the excise duty paid on the capital goods during the year 2013-14 and the remaining CENVAT credit available was taken during the subsequent year 2014-15. On scr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
