9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while availing of Cenvat credit, the Appellant had not maintained a separate account as required by Rule 6(2) and suppressed this fact. On this ground, the extended period of limitation was invoked and the Appellant was held liable to pay an amount equal to 10% of the total price of the exempted final product as required by Rule 6(3)(b). Material before the Tribunal was sufficient to indicate that admittedly the Appellant produced dutiable and exempted products. Though it failed to maintain a separate account in respect of the input service utilised in or in relation to the dutiable and exempted final products as required by Rule 6(2), this fact was suppressed from the Department with the intent to evade duty - Appellant had failed to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturer does not keep separate accounts in respect of dutiable and exempted goods, Rule 6(3)(b) provides for payment of 10% of the total price of the exempted goods. Two notices to show cause were issued. One notice to show cause dated 28 April, 2009 made a demand in the amount of Rs. 4,77,390/-. The extended period of limitation was invoked on the ground that the Appellant had with an intent to evade payment of central excise duty, willfully suppressed facts from the Department justifying a recourse to the proviso to Section 11A. The Appellant was called upon to show cause against the levy of penalty and interest. Another show cause notice dated 28 April, 2009 was issued for a demand of Rs. 3,00,301/-. In that case, recourse to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that invocation of the extended period of limitation in respect of the first show cause notice was validly made and no interference in the Appeal is warranted. 4. The order of adjudication passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 30 March, 2010 notes that it was not disputed that the Appellant was manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted goods and while availing of Cenvat credit, the Appellant had not maintained a separate account as required by Rule 6(2). The Appellant had suppressed the fact of not having maintained a separate account as required. On this ground, the extended period of limitation was invoked and the Appellant was held liable to pay an amount equal to 10% of the total price of the exempted final product as required by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had not taken recourse to this procedure nor had it reversed the Cenvat credit. The time limit stipulated expired in November, 2010. Hence, the material before the Tribunal was sufficient to indicate that admittedly the Appellant produced dutiable and exempted products. Though it failed to maintain a separate account in respect of the input service utilised in or in relation to the dutiable and exempted final products as required by Rule 6(2), this fact was suppressed from the Department with the intent to evade duty. As the order of the Tribunal would indicate, the challenge to the finding of the adjudicating authority and of the first Appellate Authority in regard to the invocation of the extended period of limitation was not pressed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
