9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,09,847/- being the amount equal to 6% of the value of the electricity not used within the factory of production, along with interest at appropriate rates thereof - decided against Assessee. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- There was no justification for the Revenue to invoke the larger period of limitation and hence, the demand cannot survive for the entire period. Therefore, the demand, if any, will have to be restricted to the normal period and for this limited exercise of determining the duty liability for the normal period, the matter is remanded to the file of the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed in part. - Excise Appeal No. 356 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40679/2019 - Dated:- 26-4-2019 - MR. MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, MEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, apart from appropriating the amount reversed by the assessee voluntarily, interest at appropriate rate and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2.2 The appellant thereafter seriously contested the Show Cause Notice inter alia pleading bona fides with regard to the applicability of Rule 6, as also invoking the larger period of limitation, since, according to it, the periodical Central Excise Audits were conducted right from 2005 up to 2009 and hence, there was no suppression as the Revenue was aware of the activities of the appellant of manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods and the availment of CENVAT Credit thereon. 2.3 The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing both dutiable and exempted goods using common inputs and input services. There is no dispute with regard to the dutiable goods; there is also no dispute with regard to the dropping of demand in respect of organic manure/press mud since the adjudicating authority has followed the binding instruction issued vide Circular No. 730/46/2003-CX dated 31.07.2003. Hence, the only issue to be decided is the includibility of attributable credit in respect of electricity used in the manufacture of exempted goods. 5. We find, however, that even that issue has been laid to rest by this very Bench, in the case of M/s. India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Tirunelveli reported in 2018-TIOL-1996-CES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ire period. Therefore, the demand, if any, will have to be restricted to the normal period and for this limited exercise of determining the duty liability for the normal period, we are remanding the matter to the file of the adjudicating authority. 7. With regard to the penalty, in the case of M/s. India Cements Ltd. (supra) at paragraph 7 it has been held as under : 7. However, on the imposition of penalty, we find that the aspect of eligibility or otherwise of inputs used in generation of electricity wheeled out to vendors was mired in litigation for quit sometime. On this very issue, the Hon ble Supreme Court in p-21 of their judgment in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi - 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC) waive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
