9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntation and suppression to invoke extended period for demanding the excess credit availed and utilized - E/1354/2009-SM(BR) - 836/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 11-11-2011 - Shri Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods. They were taking Cenvat credit of excise duty paid on inputs. The Cenvat Credit Scheme was amended by new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 10-9-2004 by which they were allowed to take Cenvat credit of Service tax paid on input services. Rule 9(1)(f) of Cenvat Credit Rules read as under : RULE 9. Documents and accounts. - (1) The CENVAT credit shall be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for insurance for the period prior to 10-9-2004 and have taken credit only for that tax on that part of the premium which covered insurance from 10-9-2004. So there is no reason to deny such credit which is legitimately due to them. 4. His next contention is that the Show Cause Notice is issued on the basis of audit conducted by the department and there are decisions of the Tribunal that for short levies detected in audit, Show Cause Notice invoking the larger period of five years cannot be invoked. So he contests that the demand is time barred. 5. The ld. Authorized Representative for Revenue submits that Rule 9(1)(f) is clear enough that credit can be taken only if the invoice for the service is raised on or after 10-9-2004 which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g their own interpretation without intimation to department would justify to consider this as a case of mis-representation and suppression to invoke extended period for demanding the excess credit availed and utilized. So I do not agree with the contention of the appellants on time bar either. 7. In the matter of penalty I find that Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not mandate imposition of penalty equal to wrong credit taken. Further even under Section 11AC the assessee is to be given an option to pay 25% of the duty evaded as penalty within 30 days of receipt of the order for final closure of the matter. No such option has been given in this case. So I find it proper to give an option to the appellant to pay, within 30 days of receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
