9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling under Tariff Sub-heading No.8421 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During October, 2006, the Appellant had availed cenvat credit against four input invoices issued by suppliers, namely, M/s Pennar Industries Ltd., M/s Ador Powertron Ltd., & M/s International Combustion (India) Ltd. In the said invoices, the Appellant's name as well as consignees name and place of delivery had been shown. The place of delivery is the place, where the Appellants were installing Air Pollution Control Equipment. However, even though, the inputs were not received in their factory but delivered at site, the Appellant had erronerously availed cenvat credit on the same. A show-cause notice was issued to them for recovery of the said cenvat credit and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ory in Kolkata. Later on, when the demand was issued to them for recovery of the said amount, the entire amount of cenvat credit along with interest have been paid. Shri Sinha also submitted that since the Appellant is an SSI Unit, they are not fully conversant with the Central Excise Law and Procedure, for which, the said mistake had occurred on their part. Further, he has submitted that even though, in the show-cause notice, a penalty has been proposed under Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, however, the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly imposed penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In support, he has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice tax on such goods or services, as the case may be, or two thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Further, I find that while confirming the demand in the adjudication proceedings, the Adjudicating Authority has imposed penalty under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Rule 15 (2) of Central Credit Rules, 2004 is as follows : 15 (2) a case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input or?(2) capital goods or input services has been taken or utilised wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Excise Act, or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s observed that before imposition of penalty under the relevant Rules, the relevant Acts or omissions are required to be disclosed, so as to enable the notice to submit the reply to the allegation of violation of Rules quoted in the notice. In the present case, the Revenue has proposed penalty under Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, but the adjudicating authority did not mention about wrong quotation of Rule, but proceeded to impose penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for which the Appellants were not put to notice, whereas the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the penalty mentioning that it is a wrong quotation of Rules, hence, does not vitiate the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
