9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to wake up from their peaceful slumber and issue a letter calling for the details of the credit availed. The department has no case that the appellants did not furnish details when required for - appellant cannot be saddled with allegation of suppression of facts with intend to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the SCN issued invoking the extended period of limitation cannot sustain - the penalty also cannot be imposed for the reason that the appellant had paid the duty on the genuine belief that the product is dutiable - some part of the period covered in the SCN lies within the normal period, for which demand is sustained. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit of inputs lying in stock and input services as well as pertaining to the process and finished goods lying in stock was reversed. A show cause notice was served alleging that the appellant availed irregular CENVAT credit of inputs and input services used in the manufacture of pegfilgrastim, an exempted product cleared during the period March, 2011 to December, 2012. After due process of law, it was adjudicated vide the impugned order wherein lower authority disallowed the cenvat credit of ₹ 8,65,587/- to be paid by the appellant along with interest and also imposed penalty equal to such irregularly availed cenvat credit, with an option to pay 25% reduced penalty, in case the interest and reduced penalty amount is paid within 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the credit availed on input and input services used in the manufacture of Pegfilgrastim. The appellant replied vide letter dated 13.08.2013 stating that the appellant has stopped paying duty on the said product with effect from January 2013 and also has stopped availing CENVAT Credit from January 2013. The appellant had also supplied details of the duty paid and the CENVAT Credit availed on inputs and input service for the short period from March 2011 to December 2012. There upon the department has issued the show cause notice dated 03.09.2013 invoking the extended period of limitation alleging suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. The Ld. Counsel contended that the appellant has always cooperated with the department and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product Pegfilgrastim was not a dutiable product and that the credit on the inputs is ineligible to them. Therefore, the demand made invoking the extended period of limitation is correct and proper. 4. I have heard the submissions made before me. 5. On perusal of records it is seen that in the letter dated 05.09.2012 the appellant has clearly stated that they have been paying duty on their new product Pegfilgrastim and are also availing credit on inputs and input services. They have put forward their doubts and understandings in respect of the non-dutiable nature of the product and has requested the department to clarify whether they are required to pay duty on the said product. In the letter dated 16.11.2012 the appellant has referred t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coming to the contention of the Ld. Counsel that the entire demand has to be set aside for the reason that the situation gives rise to a revenue neutral one, the argument though attractive cannot be accepted. First of all, the appellants have continued to pay duty till the end of December even after having realised in September, 2012 itself, that they are not liable to pay duty. The judgment rendered in the case of Ajmeer Food Products Ltd., (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for appellant is distinguishable on facts. In the said case appellant had mistakenly paid duty only for two days. In the case on hand, they have continued to pay duty for one year especially even after realising that they are not liable to pay duty. In view thereo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
