9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be confirmed. As such, we fully agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that confirmation of the same in remand proceedings was not appropriate. Similarly as regards the second issue, it is noted that whatever duty was payable by the appellant was available as credit to their sister unit in which case extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as rightly held by Commissioner (Appeals) - Similarly the issue of availment of credit on the basis of the invoices which was not signed by the Authorized Signatory was already held by the Tribunal as rectifiable defect and not resulting in denial of cenvat credit to the assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No.70316 of 2019 - FINAL ORDER NO. 71906/2019 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty and allowed Cenvat credit on the invoices which were not signed by the authorised representative. In the remand proceedings, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the deposit/debit of ₹ 52,25,340/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rule, read with Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1994. The deposit/debit of ₹ 2,62,460/- was also confirmed on credit taken on improper invoices. Demand of ₹ 8,73,454/- was confirmed under the Rule 8 of Valuation Rules. Interest under Section 11AB of the Act was also demanded on the demands confirmed., Penalty of ₹ 66,28,730/- was imposed upon the assessee under Section 11AC of the Act. The Adjudication Authority has also imposed a penalty of ₹ 66,28,730/- on S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand itself is set aside, the interest demanded, and penalty imposed, to the extent the same are relatable to the demand so confirmed, are not maintainable and the same are also set aside. Under the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the amounts of Cenvat credit reserved by the appellant would have to be treated as deposits only for any consequential relief, including interest payable on such deposits, that the appellant may be entitled to because of setting aside of the demand. 8. The second issue on which the appellant is in appeal, relates to demand of Central Excise duty in terms of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules on clearances made to sister concerns on which the duty should have been paid @ 110% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Service Tax paid, is available to same assessee, intention to evade duty cannot be attributed-In instant case even if Service Tax had been paid under reverse charge mechanism, situation would have been revenue neutral on availing credit of tax paid- Extended period of limitation not invocable in such cases-Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 12] In view of the above, the demand confirmed by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable, and the same is set-aside. As the demand itself is set aside, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 9. Regarding imposition of penalty in respect of the inputs not received back from the job worker within 180 days, the same has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly the present order stands passed in the second round of litigation. When earlier the matter has travelled up to Tribunal and Tribunal vide its Final Order No.50234/2014 dated 23 January, 2014 had held that inasmuch as there was no proposal in the show cause notice for confirming and appropriating the already reversed cenvat credit, the same cannot be confirmed. As such, we fully agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that confirmation of the same in remand proceedings was not appropriate. Similarly as regards the second issue, we note that whatever duty was payable by the appellant was available as credit to their sister unit in which case extended period of limitation cannot be invoked as rightly held by Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
