9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r utilized substitute with taken and utilized therefore prior to 1-4-2012, even if the Cenvat credit was not utilized but only taken wrongly interest is chargeable - interest for the period from April, 10 to March, 12 was rightly demanded. Penalty u/s 11AC - extended period of limitation - Held that: - appellant was very much knowing that they are manufacturing and clearing dutiable goods as well as doing trading activity which is neither chargeable to duty nor to service tax and despite this fact they availed credit on common input service. It is only on pointed out by the audit party they have reversed the amount there is clear suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Extended period of demand is rightly invoked - Ingredients ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest for the period from 1st april 12 was not demanded. 2. Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that though the credit was availed attributable to the trading activity, the same was lying unutilized therefore interest even for the period April, 2010 to March, 2012 is not recoverable. She further submits that penalty was imposed under section 11AC. The issue involved was whether the Cenvat credit is available on the input service attributable to trading activity. This issue is of interpretation of Cenvat provisions. The amendment in the Cenvat credit Rules brought on statute to the trading activity w.e.f. 1-4-2011 therefore issue is of contentious and no malafide intentions proved against the appellant. She further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T) 3. On the other hand, Shri. N. N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that as regard the demand of interest for the period April, 2010 to March, 2012 issue is settled by Hon ble High Court in case of Union of India Versus Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. - 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). As regard the penalty imposed under Section 11AC he submits that they are removing dutiable as well as trading goods which is not chargeable to excise duty or service tax on availing Cenvat credit on the entire common input service Rule 6(1) is unambiguous therefore it cannot be said that issue is of interpretation of law. Demand is not challenged by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clear suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Rule 6(1) is unambiguous, the genesis of Rule 6(1) is Rule 57 CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 therefore is not new provisions which assesse is not aware of, whether the Cenvat credit is available in respect of input or input service used in exempted goods is well settled and hence it cannot be said that issue involved is of interpretation of law. Extended period of demand is invoked and same was confirmed. Appellant have not challenged the demand either on merit or on limitation, therefore invocation of extended period stands maintained. Ingredients for invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is pari materia to the ingredient provided for imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
