9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case are that the appellant, M/s. Anmol Industries Limited, is engaged in the business of manufacture of different varieties of Biscuits falling under Chapter No. 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. Based on an EA 2000 audit of the excise and service tax records of the Appellant for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15, a Show cause notice dated 26.05.2016 was issued alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 4,62,741/-. The said SCN culminated into Order-in-Original dated 16/02/2018 wherein the Adjudicating authority confirmed the total demand as proposed in the Show Cause Notice alongwith interest and imposed penalty and ordered for appropriation of amount of Rs. 251,816/- as duty and interest of Rs. 77,8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, on justified the impugned orders. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. The short issue that arise for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the Appellant is required to again reverse the full amount of Cenvat credit on account of ineligibility of Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant during the period in which the reversal of Cenvat credit as per the procedure laid down Rule 6(3) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit during the said period has already been done by the Appellant. The Appellant has also produced a CA certificate showing the reversals made for the FY 2014-15 on account of following the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, I hold that the Appellant cannot be asked to reverse more than the actual Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant and based on the CA certificate and Range report there is no doubt as to the fact that the Appellant has actually followed the process of proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Thus, I set aside the demand on the above ground. As regards imposition of penalty, I find that the disputed amount had been paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, and the entire amount was paid alongwith interest. Therefore, I am of the view that the payment of duty in the instant case should have been treated as payment of central excise duty under Section 11A (2B) of the Act and the show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
