9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember, 2008. The penalty has been proposed u/r 15 read with Section 11 AC in the first SCN and u/r 15(3) for second SCN. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Advocate, Rule 15(1) and 15(2) ibid are not applicable in their case as the same pertain to inputs and capital goods. Rule 15 (4) of the credit Rules applies to provider or output services. Hence, the appellants are liable to penalty u/r 15 (3) of the CCR. Penalty is therefore, reduced to ₹ 4000/- i.e. ₹ 2000/- each. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee. - E/2190/2011 - A/60366/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 14-3-2017 - Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. A. Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Harvinder Singh, AR for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the disallowed amount was also confirmed and penalty of ₹ 2,13,104/- (equivalent to total disallowed credit) was also imposed. 2.3 The Revenue as well as the assessee went in appeal against the said order of adjudicating authority before Commissioner (Appeals). In his order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the appellants thereby upholding the disallowed credit, interest and penalty thereon and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2.4 The appellants have deposited an amount of ₹ 2,13,104/- and interest of ₹ 1,08,675/- which was disallowed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). They are contesting the penalty of ₹ 2,13,104/- and remaining demand of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of CCR w.e.f. 16.07.2010. Therefore, he pleaded that the penalty of ₹ 2000/- can only be imposed on them in terms of Rule 15(3) of CCR as Rule 15(1) and 15(2) only applies to cenvat credit taken in respect of inputs and capital goods. Rule 15(4) applies to provider of output service. He relied upon the following judgments: (a) Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Allahabad 2013 (30) STR 384 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Inox Air Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2013 (30) STR 47 (Tri.-Bang.) 4. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that the inadmissible input service had been detected during the scrutiny of records and input service was not mentioned in ER-1, ER-2 ER-3. In the self assessment regime the responsibility to correctly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... employees of the company besides taking Cenvat Credit on the same. This practice is coming out in both the show cause notices. The burden of taking Cenvat Credit properly has been cast on the assessee under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the same was not discharged properly. In such a situation, the extended period can be invoked as held by the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Rathi Steel Power Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT 200(All.). In fact, in the instant case there is a positive act on the part of the appellant as they went on collecting the charges from the employees and also availing the Cenvat Credit in respect of the same. The judgment of Padmini Products vs. CCE (supra) and CCE vs. Chemphar Drugs Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
