9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,23,68,399/-, interest and penalty of equal amount under Section Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 4. The other appellant Shri. Prakash Parakh, Managing Director of the appellant firm filed the appeal against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs imposed on the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. The demand is confirmed after denying Cenvat Credit on inputs imported under the DEPB Scheme for which the Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) was adjusted through DEPB and not paid by cash. 6. The appellant submitted that the adjustment through DEPB is also payment of duty. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In respect of time bar issue, the contention is that the appellant never disclosed that credit has been taken in respect of CVD which is adjusted against DEPB. The Revenue also relies upon the statement of Mr. Dyanesyhwar Yeole admitted that the appellants were aware that such credit of Additional Duty of Customs adjusted through DEPB is not admissible as per the Exim Policy 2002-07. 10. The contention is that as per para 4.3 of the Exim Policy 2002-07 where the Additional Duty of Customs is not paid by cash, no benefit of Cenvat Credit is admissible. Hence the impugned order is rightly passed. 11. In this case the issue is whether mere debit is sufficient for eligible of credit on the strength of Bill of Entry where the appellant avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible. In view of the clear provisions of the Exim Policy and in view of the admitted fact we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed after denying the credit along with interest and penalty. 15. In respect of the time bar, we find that as the appellants were availing the benefit of Customs Notification as per Exim Policy 2002-07 and goods were cleared without payment of duty by adjusting the duty amount from DEPB and as per the Exim Policy credit is not admissible in respect of such adjustment. Further we find that there authorized signatory in his statement stated that the appellants were aware of the fact that as per the Exim Policy no credit is admissible. Further, the appellant has not disclosed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
