9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g disposed of by this common order. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal Nos. E/23425/2014 E/23426/2014 Period of dispute December 2010 December 2011 Demand of Cenvat Credit (Rs.) 4,96,320/- 3,75,840/- Penalty imposed (Rs.) 1,00,000/- 75,000/- Order-in-Original No. & Date 51(A)/2013 dated 22.07.2013 52(B)/2013 dated 22.07.2013 Order-in-Appeal No. & Date 414-415/2013 dated 13.09.2013 1.2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cement and Cement Clinker falling under Chapter Headings 2523 2940 and 2523 1000 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and are availing the facility of cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As per th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. The adjudicating authority after due process of law vide Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2013 demanded and ordered recovery of the amount equivalent to cenvat credit taken in respect of items amounting to Rs. 4,96,320/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only) for which provisions were made for obsolescence in their Books of Accounts in the year 2010 under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section IIA(I) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and also demanded interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-, (Rupees One Lakh only) under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and similarly in another show-cause notice dated 26.12.2012 demanded recovery of the amount equivalent to cenvat credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obsolescence stock on store and spare parts in terms of the company policy. He also submitted that the company policy does not allow the appellants to make any provision to write off the obsolescence stock of store and spare parts fully. He also submitted that in the present case the appellant has made provision to write off the input/capital goods partially and the period of dispute involved is prior to 01.03.2011, the amended provisions of Rule 3(5B) are not applicable in the present case and for this submission, he relied upon the Board's Circular No. 645/36/2002-CX dated 16.07.2002 and also relied upon the following decisions: a) CCE, Jamshedpur Vs. Tata Motors Ltd. - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 545 (Tri. -Kolk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wledge of the Department, the extended period cannot be invoked. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. The learned AR further submitted that the appellant has made the provision for obsolescence of stock of stores and spares in their Books of Account for the year 2007-2008 without reversing the cenvat credit availed on those stores/spares in terms of Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Learned AR further submitted that the appellants have not produced any documentary evidence to prove that provision is made only for partial value of the goods written off. Learned AR further submitted that the fact of writing off of the value of input/provision to write off has been suppressed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
