9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llegation of suppression in these set of facts cannot be alleged against the appellant. As that is not known at the time of availment of Cenvat Credit whether these inputs will go in manufacturing of exempted goods. Further, on the legal aspect I find that the issue came up before the Hon ble High Court of P&H in the case of Sangrur Agro Ltd. (2010 (2) TMI 438 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) wherein Hon ble High court has held that the case is related to reversal of amount under section 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 penalty under section 11 AC is not imposable as the said provision are not applicable. Consequently, penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is also not imposable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Both the lower authorities imposed a penalty on the appellant. By way of this appeal appellant is challenging imposition of penalty on the appellant. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are filing their ER-1 returns showing their clearance of exempted goods and they have intimidated to the department that for clearance of parts of wind mill they are availing exemption under notification no.6/2006-CE and clearing the goods without payment of duty. Therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable. Moreover, it is submitted that as per Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 Rule 6(3) says that if appellant is not maintaining account of inputs / input services which are being used in the manufacturing of dutiable as well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty is rightly imposed. To support his contention she relied on the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd.-2009 (240) ELT 661 (SC). 4. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 5. In this case short issue before me is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case penalty is imposable on the appellant or not. Admittedly, appellant is not maintaining separate account for input / input services which were being used for manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted final product. It is also clear from the facts on record that at the time of availment of Cenvat Credit, it was not known to the appellant whether they will be clearing final product without payment of duty or not. Therefore, the al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n amount equal to 8% of the value of the exempted finished products at the time of their clearances. It is only imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC which has been disputed. According to the Deptt., they are liable for penalty equal to this amount as per the provisions of Section11AC. The question now arises as to whether the provisions Section 11AC are applicable to all for non-payment of the amount due under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Sangrur Agro Ltd. (supra) has held that the provisions of Section 11 AC are not applicable in respect of short payment or non-payment of the amount due under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Sangrur Agro Ltd. (Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
