9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1985 and is availing and utilizing credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as well as credit of service tax paid on input services in terms of Rule 3(1) read with Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant manufactures the goods and exports the same to foreign countries as per the purchase order placed by foreign customers as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between them. As per the terms and conditions, the cost of transportation is borne by the appellant and thereafter they take the cenvat credit on reverse charge basis. The appellant has paid service tax to the department in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C of the Central Excise Act, but there are no allegations in the show cause notice as well as in the order-in-original and order-in-appeal where the ingredients of Section 11AC are mentioned. She further submitted that once the Commissioner (Appeals) has given the relief with regard to interest on the ground that though the credit was availed by the appellant but not utilized, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2009 (240) ELT 328 (P&H). In order to appreciate the whole controversy, I would like to reproduce the relevant sub-rule(2) of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, which are reproduced herein be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order there is no discussion at all with regard to suppression of material fact with intent to evade payment of duty. In order to support her submissions, she cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Thane-II vs. Bright Brothers Ltd. reported in 2015 (322) ELT 110 (Bom.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court in para 11 has observed as under:- "Ms. Anjali Hirawat's reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Continental Foundation Joint Venture (supra), is well placed. Once there was a scope for entertaining a doubt, and there is no wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, then, penalty is not called for. The imposition is only in the event the ingredients necessary to be sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
