9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rise - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3767/2010-EX[DB] - A/71854/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 15-6-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for Appellant Shri Mohd. Altaf, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeal is filed by the appellant-assessee against Order-in-Original No.05/COMM/NOIDA/2010-11 dated 30/08/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are:- 2.1 The issue relates to availment of Cenvat credit. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of automotive (car) parts and components which include seats and d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es which were further used in the manufacture of passenger cars by HSCIL. An audit of the appellant was also conducted. 2.6. A show cause notice bearing No. IV-CE(9) CP/84/06 dated 01.04.2007 was issued to HSCIL proposing to recover an amount of INR 2,93,33,114 on account of credit of additional duty of customs (SAD) along with interest and penalty and also for appropriation of the equivalent voluntarily deposited amount. 2.7. The said show cause notice dated 01.04.2007 was adjudicated vide adjudication Order No.15/Commissioner/2008 and the demand as proposed in the SCN dated 01.04.2007 was confirmed against M/s HSCIL. 2.8. A show cause notice bearing No.V(15) Adj./Noida/Techsun/113/09/11995-998 dated 17.08.2009 was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the reason that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade duty or to debit less amount since the whole exercise was revenue neutral. Therefore, explanation 1 to Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the said Act is not applicable in their case. He has, further, contended that in similar circumstances this Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported at 2010 (255) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. Mumbai) has held that provisions related to penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 apply to a case where an assessee takes credit in respect of inputs or capital goods wrongly and such inputs or capital goods become liable to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
