9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uperintendent in-charge of the 100% EOU on 18.12.2007. The appellants have only availed CENVAT credit but have not utilized the same as there was sufficient balance lying in the CENVAT credit during the relevant period and therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay interest and penalty. Since there was some procedural violation committed by the appellant, therefore a nominal penalty of ₹ 5,000/- is imposed under 15 of CCR, 2004 on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/632/2009-SM - 20784/2017 - Dated:- 11-4-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. K. Parameswaran, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order has rejected the appeal, hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record and also passed contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has denied the eligible benefit of CENVAT credit by misconceiving the factual position and even as per the formula prescribed in the said Rule 3(7) of the CCR, by essentially not taking into account the revised assessable value but has upheld the said computat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to be taken, even as per the formula thereof. He also submitted that the letter furnished by the 100% EOU supplier viz., M/s. Mahima Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. has in effect furnished only a confirmation for payment of differential customs duty on the special processing charges involved and hence the said document would also become a valid document for availing the said credit by the appellant. He further submitted that even otherwise, assuming that the credit could have been taken by the appellant herein of the said differential duty amount involved only after the receipt of the said certificate during December 2007, still the appellant herein had a sufficient balance in the CENVAT credit account and the same remained only a book entry an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NVAT credit was taken before it became due and he further submitted that the appellant has violated Rule 9 of CCR during the material period. 6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the decisions cited supra, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed based on the original assessable value indicated in the said two invoices No.141 dated 18.7.2007 and Invoice No.197 dated 23.8.2007 and not taking into account the revised assessable value. Moreover, I also find that subsequently during December 2007, a certificate was received from the supplier M/s. Mahima Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., a 100% EOU and it was duly certified by the juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
