9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants has not been calculated correctly. Now the Ld. Advocate avers that the appellant has reversed much more than that required to be reversed by them in the impugned period under Rule 6 (3) (a) of the Rules - such an averment would require to be verified - for the limited purpose for causing verifying the claim of the appellant that the entire quantum of Cenvat credit required to be reversed as indeed been reversed, the matter is remanded for denovo adjudication. Penalty u/r 15 of CCR - Held that: - Rule 15 of the said Rules contains provisions for confiscation and penalty in cases where Cenvat credit in respect of input or capital goods or input services has been taken or utilized wrongly - During the impugned period, provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Accordingly, three SCNs were issued to the appellants as follows:- 1. SCN No. 15/9/2007 dated 04.05.2007 Period of dispute: January 2006 to June 2006 Amount: ₹ 6,32,781/- proposed to impose penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 2. SCN No. 15/31/2007 dated 29.08.2007 Period of dispute: August 2006 to June 2007 Amount: ₹ 56,87,961/- proposed to impose penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 3. SCN No. 15/43/2008 dated 28.07.2008 Period of dispute: July 2007 to April 2008 Amount: ₹ 86,43,514/- along with interest and penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e workings submitted by the appellants that the rate of reversal arrived at by the appellants are inclusive of input service credit. v) The appellants had already reversed more the credit than what ought to have been paid by them as per Rule 6 (3) (a) of the CCR 2004. Therefore, nothing more needs to be paid by them and hence the imposition of penalty is not maintainable. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR, Shri A. Cletus, ADC, appearing on behalf of Revenue supports the adjudication. He further submits that for the period January 2006 to July 2006, appellant while considering the input credit for reversal, appellants had committe4d to consider input services credit. For the period August 2006 to June 2007, and for July 2007 to April 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ausing verifying the claim of the appellant that the entire quantum of Cenvat credit required to be reversed as indeed been reversed, the matter is remanded for denovo adjudication. In case, this claim of the appellant is found correct, no further demand will arise in respect of Cenvat credit required to be reversed attributable to inputs used in exempted goods. Further, in keeping with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.) and also by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd., - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 509 (Mad.), it is clarified that in case the required quantum of Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
