9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) Sh. B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. M. Chandra Bose, Additional Joint Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No.TTD-EXCUS-000-COM-029-15-16-DT dated 31.03.2016. Brief acts of the case are: 2.1 Intelligence gathered by the Central Excise, Anti-Evasion unit of Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as 'Officers' or 'Department') revealed that the appellant had cleared the 'CENVAT credit availed Capital Goods' from their premises without payment of amount payable in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; 2.2 Investigation in to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant leased out the Sponge Iron Unit in Survey No.143 A along with its plant and machinery to M/s Canara Overseas Ltd., 1129, Sourabha, Service Road, Vijaya Nagar, Bangalore under Lease Agreement dated 30.05.2011 (effective from 15.01.2011). The appellant had retained certain part of land in Survey No.143 B/2 for themselves and got amended their ground plan accordingly in the Central Excise Registration Records and presently they are filing monthly Central Excise ER.1 Returns with the Range office depicting Nil transactions; 2.5 From the above and as admitted by the appellant vide statements/letters submitted, it appeared that they had removed the capital goods, on which CENVAT credit was availed, by leasing out to other manufacturers wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and of an amount of ₹ 18,31,267/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty seven only) in respect of capital goods removed from the premises of SBTMT under Rule 3 (5A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. I appropriate an amount of ₹ 13,42,844/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs forty two thousand eight hundred and forty four only) towards the above liability. ii) I demand interest under Section 11AB/11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the amount at (i) above. iii) I impose penalty of ₹ 18,31,267/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty seven only) under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion, the adjudicating authority has given a detailed reasoning for confirmation of demand of ₹ 18,31,367/- with interest and also for imposing penalties. would like to reproduce the said findings. 32.8 The amount arrived is ₹ 18,31,267/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty seven only). The detailed worksheet is enclosed as Annexure to this order. As per provisions of rule 3(5A) read with proviso thereto, says that if the amount so calculated is less than the amount equal to the duty leviable on transaction value, the amount to be paid shall be equal to the duty leviable on transaction value. In the present case, the amount calculated at is arrived at ₹ 18,31,267/- where as the duty paid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as such they have not raised invoice and subsequently they raised invoices and submitted to the department. If the departmental officers had not noticed the irregularity, the issue would not have come to the notice of the department. To argue that the price was not finalized at the time of removal is only an afterthought and there is no truth in their submission. The assessee would have lied about their removal date and it is because of officers' visit and verification at the other end only made them to accept removal date and payment of the amount. There is clear malafide intention on the part of the assessee as there is clear case of suppression and accordingly invoking extended period is sustainable. 34.1 The assessee has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
