9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. During the course of audit by the Department, it was noticed that the appellant had committed certain irregularities resulting in wrong availment of cenvat credit totaling to Rs. 18,48,397/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Seven only) and also short payment of Rs. 1,27,204/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Four only) for the period from June 2009 to July 2010. On being pointed out by the audit, the appellant reversed the past credit with interest. However it appeared that the above irregularities were. committed by reason of fraud, suppression with intent to evade payment of duty and as such penalty is liable to be imposed under Section 11AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted that for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules for the period June 2009 to July 2010, it is relevant to note that prior to February 2010, Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules miss the word 'input service' did not exist in Rule 15 (2). Therefore, imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) between June 2009 to February 2010 was not legal in view of the decision in the case of Davangere Sugar Company Vs. CCE 2011 (267) E.L.T. 384. He further submitted that the imposition of penalty under 11AC (1) (b) for Rs. 1,27,204/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Four only), the said provision was made applicable only from April 2011. As the said provision was not applicable during the period of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly 2010 as the demand notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation as the appellant was regularly been audited by the Department and most of the credits though reversed were eligible for the appellant as cenvat credit. Therefore, extended period could not be invoked as there is no suppression on the part of the appellant. 4. On the other hand the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in reply to the show-cause notice, the appellant filed a detailed reply clearfy stating that the appellants are entitled to cenvat credit on plastic crates and they are also entitled to credit on Security Services as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
