9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9010 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the audit of their records by the Internal Audit Party of the Department, it was observed that the appellant was doing job work of galvanization by using input Zinc procured by them on which CENVAT credit has been availed. The appellant was using the CENVAT availed Zinc for galvanization for both dutiable finished goods as well as exempted job work activity. It was observed that the appellants were availing CENVAT credit on entire Zinc purchased but had not maintained separate accounts. Therefore, it appeared that the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on the input Zinc used in exempted job work activity needs to be reversed under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002. On these allegations, a show-cause notice dated 6.12.2018 was issued to the appellant and after following the due process, the original authority vide order dated 22.1.2015 confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,42,791/- under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without appreciating the facts and the binding judicial preceden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods and the Commissioner (A) has also recorded in para 11 that the assessee has collected the amount of duty reversed on inputs used for exempted activity by raising invoices as "excise duty collected". He further argued that the impugned order concludes in para 12 that the assessee has paid the said amount as duty on inputs used for job work and collected the same from the principal manufacturers with the description "excise duty collected" and the said collected amount remains unpaid and is recoverable in terms of Section 11D(1A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To counter this, he submitted that this finding is not tenable in view of the fact that the appellant has collected the duty from the principals and reversed the same in their CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instance of the audit party, has deposited an amount of Rs. 9,29,693/- under protest in November 2012 which should be refunded to him. On limitation also, the learned counsel submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation because the show-cause notice was issued on 6.12.2013 for the period from April 2009 to October 2012. He further submitted that the appellants have not suppressed any material fact with intent to evade payment of duty and invoice-wise debit of CENVAT is disclosed in ER-1 returns and further, copies of the invoices and ER1 returns are on record. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and various decisions relied upon by the appellant, I find that as far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
