The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to Hindustan Unilever by quashing the penalty imposed under rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules,2002.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd, the appellant assessee was issuing supplementary invoices paying differential duty on the Bulk Detergent Powder stock transferred to the Indu Home Care Product during the period June 2012 to August 2013.
The assessee appealed against the order passed by the adjudicating authority for denying the CENVAT credit under Rule 9(1)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules and for the imposition of penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Manshi Patil and Viraj Reshamwala, the counsels for the assessee contended that there was no suppression on the part of the assessee in payment of differential duty, and whatever duty was payable by the Hindustan Unilever Ltd was admissible as CENVAT Credit therefore entire exercise was revenue neutral. Also submitted that no mala fide intention was involved in the present case, therefore the allegation of suppression of fact for denying the CENVAT Credit on the supplementary invoice was not correct.
Ashok Thanvi, the counsel for the department relied on the decisions made by the lower authorities and contended that the penalty imposed on the assessee was as per the law and liable to be sustained. The Bench observed that the assessee rightly issued the supplementary invoice towards the payment of differential duty and the issuance of the supplementary invoice was not illegal or incorrect.
The two-member bench comprising Ramesh Nair (Judicial) and Raju (Technical) quashed the penalty imposed on the assessee while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
