9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CETA, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit on inputs. The appellant has manufactured and cleared 45 Nos. of "Oil Cooling System" valued at Rs. 3,67,20,000/- during the period from June 2009 to January 2010 to M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore without paying duty by availing exemption under Notification No. 63/95 dated 16.03.1995 based on the purchase orders issued by M/s. HAL, Bangalore. Department observed that Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 vide SI. No. 2 exempts the goods manufactured by M/s. HAL, Bangalore for supply to the Ministry of Defence for official purposes and does not exempt supply made by vendors to M/s. HAL, Bangalore. Therefore, SCN C. No. V/84/15/30/2010 Adjn BNG-II dated 17.05.2010 was issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of "Oil Cooling Systems" cleared to M/s. HAL, Bangalore. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Peenya-II Division, Bangalore vide letter C.No. IV/16/296/2014 P-II Tech dated 05.02.2016 rejected the request for the assessee to avail CENVAT credit on invoices which was more than five years old in view of the following: (i) Rule 4 of CENVAT credit Rules 2004 provides the conditions for availment of credit. Vide Notification No. 21/2014-CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014, after the second proviso to Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the following proviso was inserted for the first time to fix time limit to avail CENVAT credit (effective from 01.09.2014). "Provided also that the manufacture or the provider of output services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d ten percent of the demand was issued. After following the due process, the Original Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 31.03.2017 confirmed the demand with 10% penalty under Section 11AC(1)(a) of Central Excise Act and Rule 15(1) of CCR. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who also rejected the same. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the judgment of this Tribunal dated 03.06.2013. He further submitted that goods were manufactured by the appellant and supplied to M/s. HA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record, I find that the appellant manufactured the goods and supplied the same to M/s. HAL during the period June 2009 to January 2010 and for manufacturing the said products, inputs were used and at that time, he did not avail CENVAT credit on inputs because he was under the impression that he is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 63/95-CE dated 16.03.1995. Further, I find that the CESTAT, Bangalore in their final Order dated 03.06.2013 held that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification. Thereafter, the appellant paid the entire duty along with interest but claimed the benefit of CENVAT credit on inputs which the Tribunal at that point of time did not consider his request on the ground that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
