9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. They manufacture both dutiable and exempted Ayurvedic medicines and availed CENVAT credit of excise duty paid on inputs under Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, 2002 and 2004. In the case of fuel used in generation of steam, they were taking credit for the entire quantity received, which were used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. It was alleged that as per Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, 2002 and 2004 the appellant was not eligible to avail CENVAT credit on such quantity of inputs (furnace oil), used as fuel for generation of steam in the manufacture of non-dutiable products. They did not reverse the credit of duty availed on fuel used in the manufacture of exempted goods for the period 30.1.2002 to 28.2.2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, since the issue is still subjudice before the Hon'ble apex court but on limitation, substantial demand is time barred. It is his submission that the Commissioner (A) has set aside all the penalties including the penalty imposed under Section 11AC, by holding that there was confusion regarding the availability of CENVAT credit on fuel used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods. No appeal was preferred by the Revenue against this finding of the Commissioner (A). Further, no finding was also made by the Commissioner (A) to uphold the demand for the extended period. In such circumstances, he submitted that the demand for the period up to November 2005 is hit by limitation. For this, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has been consistently held by the Tribunal that the extended period cannot be invoked when penalty is dropped under Section 11AC. By following the ratios of the said decisions, I hold that the demand for the period from 30.1.2002 to 30.11.2005 is time barred and set aside the same and 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. Accordingly, the appeal is partially allowed and the demand for the extended period is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Needless to say that the original authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
