9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant has paid the amount as per Rule 6(3) of CCR, the Revenue cannot insist that the appellants should reverse the entire credit - the appellants in order to buy peace reverse the entire credit and also paid the interest on the remaining amount - thus, it was not justified to impose penalty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20211/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21947/2018 - Dated:- 28-12-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. B. Venugopal, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. M. Sharan, Asst. Commissioner, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (A) has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 5,53,204/- was demanded in another notice dated 13.01.2015. After considering the reply of the assessee, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand made in both the notices in full along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner who partially modified the Order-in-Original. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 also the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the appellants have opted to pay 6% of the value of the exempted goods as per the optio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vely used for exempted goods and therefore, they are liable to pay penalty. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Goa, 2018 (15) GSTL 286 (Tri. Mumbai). (ii) Khalsa Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Kolkata-IV, 2016 (342) ELT 245 (Tri. Kolkata). 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have opted to pay 6% of the value of the exempted goods as per the option given under Rule 6(3)(i) because they are unable to maintain separate accounts relating to inputs used in the exempted goods. Further, I find that by following this option, they have paid the duty to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 8% of the price of exempted final products. When the manufacturer does that, he is perfectly complying with the CENVAT Credit Rules. In the present case, Revenue has seized certain private documents from the appellants and holds that they would be governed by CENVAT Credit Rules 6(2). In our view, this is not correct. When an option is given to the manufacturer, Revenue cannot force him to adopt a particular course. This will be against the CENVAT Credit Rules. Hence, we do not find much merit in the OIO. The same is set aside by allowing the appeal. 6.1 Similarly, the Tribunal in the case of PSL Ltd. (supra) has held in Para 4 as under: After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we note that the facts of this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ht that only those manufacturers of dutiable and exempted final products who are incapable of maintaining separate accounts are allowed under Rule 6(3) to pay 8% of the price of the exempted final products without maintaining separate accounts. But the provisions do not seem to mean so. In the result, the decision cited by ld. Counsel remains as authority on the issue. 6.2 Further, I find that once the appellant has paid the amount as per Rule 6(3) of CCR, the Revenue cannot insist that the appellants should reverse the entire credit. Further, I find that the appellants in order to buy peace reverse the entire credit and also paid the interest on the remaining amount. In view of these circumstances, it was not justified to impose penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
