9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent Per: SS GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 30/10/2015 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of ₹ 10,35,564/- in terms of Rule 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and also appropriated the said amount already paid and also confirmed the demand or Interest of ₹ 1,30,618/- and appropriated the said amount against paid by the appellant and also imposed equal penalty in terms of Section 1 IAC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 13 and 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. medicaments fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely attributable to the CENVAT credit availed on inputs commonly used for manufacturing dutiable and exempted final products and they have paid interest of Rs.l After following due process, the Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original dt. 25/06/2010 confirmed the demand of ₹ 1 being an amount equal to 8%/ 10% of the value of the exempted final product along with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT vide the Final Order No.25351/2013 dt. 07/05/2013 held that the submissions of the appellant as regards applicability of Rule 6 (7) of CENVAT Credit Rules required fresh consideration in view of the certificate of Cost Accountant as produced by the appellant. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot challenging the demand on the ground of limitation since they have paid the entire duty along with interest. However the appellant submitted that imposition of penalty on them invoking Section 1 IAC of Central Excise Act read with Rule 13 / Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules is not justified at all as the case does not pertain to wilful or fraudulent availment of CENVAT credit. 5. He further submitted that the issue pertains to non-following of procedure under Rule 6 of CCR in respect of credit availed on common inputs and input services and the lapse cannot be equated to fraud, suppression of facts, under Section 11AC beginning has raised willfull mis-statement etc. so as to attract penalty He also submitted that the Department itsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation but as per the instructions of his client, the counsel for the appellant has not challenged the demand on limitation. But vehemently submitted that the Department has not been able to establish that there was suppression of facts in the present case. Further I find that the case laws relied upon by the appellant are squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. following the ratios of the said decisions, I am of the considered view that the penalty imposed under Section 1 IAC of the Central Excise Act is not sustainable and therefore I drop the penalty by allowing the appeal of the appellant to that extent, (Operative part of this order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of the hearing) - - TaxTMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
