9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see to report the methodology followed by them for payment of duty on the inputs cleared as such - thus the extended period could not have been invoked - Penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944 could not have been invoked. Penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR 2004 – Refund of Excess amount paid – Held that:- The appellant clearly misunderstood the legal provisions and the appellant is expected to apply the relevant Rule correctly - appellants have not applied the Rule relating to clearance of inputs as such correctly – thus penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 upheld - the contention that they are entitled to refund of the excess amount paid before the issue of show-cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong procedure and actually the appellants should have reversed the actual amount of credit taken. The officers calculated the amount short paid as Rs. 46,267/- during the period from April 2006 to February 2011. The appellant immediately paid the short paid amount along with interest before the issue of show-cause notice. However the proceedings were initiated by issue of a show-cause notice proposing to appropriate the amount paid by the appellants and also proposing confiscation of the goods cleared and proposing penalties under Rule 15(1) and 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The proceedings have culminated in confirmation of the demand for CENVAT credit with interest and appropriation of the amounts paid and confiscation of the goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. I find that even before issue of show-cause notice, the appellant deposited an amount to cover the interest and a duty liability without waiting for show-cause notice. Such amount deposited by the appellants has been found to be in excess to the extent of more than Rs. 15,000/- after the issue of show-cause notice. This would clearly show that this is a case where provisions of Section 11A (2B) of Central Excise Act 1944 was applicable unless suppression or misstatement was invoked. Therefore what is required to be examined is whether the provisions of Section 11A (2B) are attracted in this case or not. It is quite clear that appellants have misunderstood the legal provisions and have paid duty on transaction value over a period of five ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
