9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 came into effect on 01.03.2003 and the assessee's plea that they were ignorant about such an amendment for some period of time was found to be acceptable. Furthermore, the Tribunal noticed that though the amendment came into effect from 01.03.2003 and the Department did not act immediately by issuing a show cause notice within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Further on perusal of the allegations made in the show cause notice, it is evidently clear that there is no material placed by the Department to establish that the conduct of the assessee in reversing the credit on the basis of the transaction value of the inputs, though the amendment came into effect from 01.03.2003 was with an int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treated as exempted goods for the reason that they were further used in the manufacture of final products cleared on payment of duty and thereby setting aside the demand of Rs. 88,982/- relying on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sterlite Industries Vs. CCE, Pune [2005 (183) ELT 353]? 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant on instructions made an endorsement stating that since the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sterlite Industries Vs. CCE Pune (2005 (183) ELT 353) is pending in appeal, Question No.2 is not pressed. Therefore, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in imposing penalty equivalent to the amount of duty by invoking Rule 13 of Cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended. The Department demanded Rs. 88,982/- on this ground, for which the assessee had paid Rs. 61,375/- on 22.07.2003. Thereafter, the Department issued show cause notice for the above issues by invoking the extended period of limitation and also proposed to demand penalty equal to that of duty/credit by invoking Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 6. The assessee submitted its explanation and the Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 25.11.2005 confirmed the demand and appropriated the amount already paid by the assessee and also imposed penalty equivalent to that of the duty/credit under Section 11AC of the Act on the ground that the assessee has suppressed the fact from the department with an intent to evade payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment did not act immediately by issuing a show cause notice within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. Further on perusal of the allegations made in the show cause notice, it is evidently clear that there is no material placed by the Department to establish that the conduct of the assessee in reversing the credit on the basis of the transaction value of the inputs, though the amendment came into effect from 01.03.2003 was with an intention to evade payment of duty. Thus in the absence of such a finding that there was intention to evade payment of duty, the Tribunal rightly deleted the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. 11. In the light of the above findings, we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
