9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emises of the appellant. It is observed that writing off amount and the shortages were detected by the departmental officers during audit and scrutiny of the Cost Audit Reports, accordingly extended period is applicable. Also, it is observed that option of payment of 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not extended to the appellant. The same is extended to the appellant subject to the condition that the entire demand along with interest and 25% reduced penalty is paid within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of this Order. - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Appeal No.EA-730/11 - Order No.FO/A/75245/2016 - Dated:- 5-4-2016 - SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Miss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gument that reversal of CENVAT Credit is only required to be done after 11.05.2007.:- (i) Electronics Corpn. Of India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad-III- [2015 (330) ELT 657(Tri.-Bang.)] (ii) Philips Electronics India Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.Ex, Pune- [2011 (274) ELT 311(Tri.-Bang.)] (iii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Navi Mumbai v. Hindalco Industries Ltd.- [2011 (272) ELT 161 (Bom.)] (iv) Commr. of Central Excise v. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd.- [2008 (226) ELT 339 (Bom.)] (v) Ray Ban Sun Optics India Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Jaipur-[2012 (283) ELT 276 (Tri.-Del.)] (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise Pune-III v. Bharat Forge Ltd.- [2015 (317) ELT 111 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (vii) ADC India Communications Ltd. vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per Cost Accounting System and no CENVAT Credit is required to be reversed. The Ld.Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied upon the amendment carried out under Notification No.26/2007-CE(NT) dated 11.05.2007 which only made reversal of CENVAT Credit where inputs are written off. It is thus the case of the Appellant that since the period of the demand is prior to 11.05.2007, therefore, no reversal of CENVAT Credit on written off inputs is required to be done. In this regard Appellant has relied upon several case laws to argue that demand is not sustainable. It is observed from the case law Electronics Corpn. Of India Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad-III (supra), relied upon by the Appellant, that CESTAT Bangalore has made following obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred by limitation. However, it is observed that writing off amount and the shortages were detected by the departmental officers during audit and scrutiny of the Cost Audit Reports, accordingly extended period is applicable. However, it is observed that option of payment of 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not extended to the Appellant. The same is extended to the Appellant subject to the condition that the entire demand along with interest and 25% reduced penalty is paid within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of this Order. 10. Based on the above observations Appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed, except extending option of 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
