9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate and relevant date indicates, in the case of appellant, the date of shipment and not the date of payment of duty. Cnsidering the fact that appellant had expressed its intention to the department, requested in writing to follow the procedure by way of recrediting cenvat credit account of the disputed account and did wait for one and half years as well as issued two remainders to the department and thereafter taken suo motu credit, it cannot be said that it had intention to contravene any of the provisions of rule or act for which it shall be penalised. It can be recorded as its erroneous understanding of procedural law by the appellant. Penalty is set aside - rest of demand upheld - appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/85984/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise duty on export of goods on failure to file rebate claim appropriately and was also put to notice for recovery of the said amount along with proposal for imposition of penalty for contravening the provisions of the Act. Adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand and penalty and so also the Commissioner (Appeals) for which appellant has filed this appeal. 3. In his memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of appeal Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted, in citing several judicial decisions, that provisions of Central Excise Rules 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 are not applicable to its case as recredit was taken by the appellant in consequence of the duty paid illegally and as excise duty was not leviable on goods ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and supported the logic and reasoning found in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and sought for no interference by this Tribunal. 5. Heard from both sides at length and perused the case records, written notes of submissions and relevant case laws including the one reported in 2018-TlOL-586-CESTAT-MAD in the case of Jubilant Engineering vs. CCE. Admittedly, Notification no. 19/2012-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 provides for the procedure to be followed in claiming of rebate to central excise authorities or by electronic declaration where no time limit is prescribed. As found from the explanation to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, refund includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India and 11(1)(B) restricts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any support from the legal procedure available in the taxation statue. Hence the appellants conduct cannot get the stamp of approval of this Tribunal. 6. However considering the fact that appellant had expressed its intention to the department, requested in writing to follow the procedure by way of recrediting cenvat credit account of the disputed account and did wait for one and half years as well as issued two remainders to the department and thereafter taken suo motu credit, it cannot be said that it had intention to contravene any of the provisions of rule or act for which it shall be penalised. It can be recorded as its erroneous understanding of procedural law by the appellant. Moreover, when no provision of Central Excise Act or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
