9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the Dipped nylon tyre cord fabric falling under Chapter 59021090 of CETA 1985. Appellant is availing cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. During the period from May 2005 to December 2005 the appellant imported 5 consignments of nylon yarn which is the main material of the final product and got the consignment released on payment of basic customs duty, CVD, cess on textile and education cess. It is further stated that the officer of the firm who was looking after excise matter inadvertently and without the knowledge of the appellant took the credit of basic customs duty amounting to Rs. 19,18,641/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred and Forty One only) and cess on textiles of Rs. 735 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 11AC besides demanding the differential interest of Rs. 1,22,371/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy One only). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner who vide his order dated 18.02.2009 confirmed the Joint Commissioner s order while dismissing the appeal of the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is wrong and illegal and has been passed without considering the judgments passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. He further submitted that on account of the inadvertent mistake on the part of the person looking after the excise matters, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and further submitted that the appellant has overdrawn cenvat credit of Rs. 3,42,025/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Two Thousand and Twenty Five only) during the month of January and February 2006 and the same has been utilized wrongly and therefore the appellant is liable to pay equal penalty under Section 11AC in view of the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors reported in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C) and also CCE, Kolkata Vs. Praxair India Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (278) E.L.T. 579 (S.C). 5. After hearing the submissions of both the sides and perusal of the judgments cited at bar, I am of the considered opinion that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
