9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the appellant is liable to pay the duty for the period from December 2005 to October 2006 and for the purpose of quantification of duty for the normal period, the case is remanded back to the original authority to re-quantify the demand for the normal period along with interest. Appeal allowed in part by way of remand. - E/20807/2016-SM - Final Order No. 20505 / 2018 - Dated:- 28-3-2018 - S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. S. Durairaj, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.2.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has confirmed the demand along with interest but dropped the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) dropping the penalty under Section 11AC finding that there is no suppression. He further submitted that once the penalty under Section 11AC is dropped, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. He also submitted that during the period 30.1.2002 to 31.10.2006, CENVAT credit is taken on furnace oil which was used both for exempted and dutiable products and the Revenue s contention is that proportionate credit for the exempted products is required to be reversed along with interest in terms of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This issue is pending before the Larger Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2012 (286) ELT 481 (SC) in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gned order and submitted that the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE vs. Deeyakar Aluminium Pvt. Ltd.: 2016 (344) ELT 76 (Guj.) has held that CENVAT credit on furnace oil is not admissible. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on records and decisions relied upon by both the sides, I find that the appellant has no case on merit in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Deeyakar Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. cited supra. As far as limitation is concerned, I find that the Commissioner (A) has set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC and the Revenue has not preferred an appeal against the dropping of the penalty. Further, I find that the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
