9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and invocation of extended period under provision to 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 is also liable for set aside. - Appeal No. : E/803/2007 & Application No. : E/CO/131/2007 - ORDER No. A/10621 / 2016 - Dated:- 7-7-2016 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For Assessee : Shri Anant Nainavati, Advocate For Revenue : Shri L Patra, Authorised Representative ORDER PER : DR D.M. MISRA, Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against OIA-99/2007/COMMR-A-/RAJ dt 3.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot. 3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd - 2012(286)ELT.481 (SC) the matter has been referred to Larger Bench but, that cannot be a ground for not following the aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court as held by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of CCE, Vadodara II Vs Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co Ltd vide Order No A/10672-10673/WZB/AHD/2013 dt. 14.5.2013. The appeal filed before the Hon ble Gujarat High Court against the said order of Larger Bench of the Tribunal has been dismissed. Thus, the issue on merit stands decided in favour of the Revenue. 5. The Ld Advocate, Shri Nainavati for the respondents on the other hand submits that even though the issue on merit, is held against the respondent, however, the respondent had succeeded on limitation before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly availed and utilized the Cenvat Credit on input used as fuel, and they have not required to follow the procedures as laid down under Rule 57 AD of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 6(1), (2) and (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002/the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is not liable for penalty under the Central Excise Laws. The appellant has followed the procedures as per the law; therefore, they are not liable for any penalty. As regards the invocation of extended period, I find that the contention of the appellant that they have already shown the names of inputs which are used in their final products, hence there is no suppression of any facts or mis-declaration. They further contended that when the provisions of Rue 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eparate accounts was required to be maintained, being specifically excluded under Rule Rules of 57 AD of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and also under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. 9. I find force in the contention of the Ld Advocate for the Respondent. Accordingly, I do not see any deficiency in the observation of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the demand cannot be sustained for the extended period and penalty cannot be imposed under Sec.11AC of CEA,1944. In the result, the order of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld in setting aside the demands for the extended period of limitation and penalty imposed. Appeal and Cross Objection disposed off. (Operative part pronounced in the open Court) - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
