9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own in the ER-1 return for the month of March but in absence of information regarding the receipt of input service prior to 1-3-2006 when product was exempted was not disclosed, therefore there is clear suppression of facts and malafide intention on the part of the appellant - Extended period was rightly invoked, hence demand cannot be made being time barred. Demand of Cenvat credit upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals) is maintained. As regard the penalty, adjudicating authority has not given the option of 25% penalty in the order-in-original as required under the proviso to Section 11AC. Penalty is reduced to 25% under Section 11AC subject to condition that the appellant pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or after 1-3-2006 for the period from 1-3-2006 onwards. Show cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-original No.19/AC/ADC/CE/12 dated 14-12-2012 whereby Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 16,98,456/-. However the appellant have already reversed the said Cenvat credit amount which was appropriated. In addition, demand of interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Section 11AC as well as same amount of penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order upheld the demand of Cenvat credit and penalty under Section 11AC, however equa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cenvat credit related to the present case, therefore there is no suppression of facts. He submits that since there is no suppression of facts the penalty was also not imposable. He placed reliance on the following judgments : (a) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P.[2006(197)EL 465(S.C.)] (b) Shalimar Chemical Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. Collr. Of C. Ex. Bombay[1996(81)ELT 248(Tri.)] (c) Commissioner of C. Ex. Hyderabad Vs. ITW Signode(I) Ltd[2008(221)ELT 75(Tri. Bang.)] 3. On the other hand, Shri. M.R. Melvin, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and malafide intention on the part of the appellant. In this fact extended period was rightly invoked, hence demand cannot be time barred. Therefore demand of Cenvat credit upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals) is maintained. As regard the penalty we find that adjudicating authority has not given the option of 25% penalty in the order-in-original as required under the proviso to Section 11AC therefore in light of Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Commissioner of C. Ex. Customs Vs. R.A. Shaikh, paper Mills Pvt Ltd[2016(335)ELT 203(S.C.)] penalty is reduced to 25% under Section 11AC subject to condition that the appellant pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. As per my above discussi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
