9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility of the exemption and the fact that Appellants were running from pillar to post for clarification, we hold that there is no malafide on the part of the Appellants - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appeal No. 4080 of 2012 - A/52974/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 9-8-2018 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appellant: Ms. Rinki Arora, Adv. Respondent: Sh. M.R. Sharma, DR ORDER PER ANIL CHOUDHARY : The present appeal is filed by the Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 38(RDN)CE/JPR-II/2012 dated 25.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Jaipur. The period in dispute is April 2008 to March 2009. 2. The brief fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in pursuant to the show cause notice dated 13.11.2009 by giving credit for the amount already deposited to the tune of ₹ 42,18,737/-. Further interest was also demanded giving credit of amount already deposited to the tune of ₹ 1,07,555/-. No penalty was imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the said eligibility of SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 for the period 2008-09 upto ₹ 1.5 crore was upheld and held them liable to pay duty on the value of clearance of ₹ 78,59,372/- (Rs.2,28,59,272/- minus ₹ 1,50,00,000/-). It was also observed that since the appellants have charged duty of ₹ 9,23,090/- on the va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel further pointed out that earlier they had paid the amount through Cenvat Credit, but on being so objected by the Department, they have paid the balance amount of ₹ 3,37,200/- by cash vide Challan dated 12.10.2011. But the fact remains that, there is no malafide in claiming the exemption and refers to series of correspondences which have been taken note of in the order-in-original in para 3.2 wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has noticed the facts as follows : 3.2 The situation was bit confusing and in order to sort out the things at the earliest, the matter was taken to the higher authority i.e. Hon ble Commissioner. Finally, on 04.11.2009, they received a letter from Commissioner which stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent assessee, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the assesses. In the case of appellant also, there was ample doubt which is clear by the above discussion. As such, the benefit of doubt should be extended to them and the impugned order should be set aside. 3.4 That, as stated in above, the entire duty of ₹ 92300/- was paid on 23.12.2009. The said duty is paid as ₹ 421873/- through cash and ₹ 501217/- from Cenvat Credit. The impugned order is raising the objection on payment of duty from Cenvat Credit. It is alleged that they have availed and utilized credit on inputs received from 5.11.2009 to 1.12.2008 when they were availing the SSI exemption benefit. As such, the benefit of Cenvat Credit was not available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
