9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or FY 2014-15. From the above noted facts, I find that the Appellant cannot be asked to pay more than what it has actually availed. The Appellant cannot be asked to reverse more than the actual Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant and based on the Chartered Accountant s certificate and Range Officer s 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 CCR, 2004. Thus, the demand is set aside on the above ground. Imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- The disputed amount had been paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, and the entire amount was paid along with interest. Therefore, the payment of duty in the instant case should have bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of ₹ 3,05,530/- along with interest and penalty. The said SCN culminated into Order-in-Original dated 30/01/2018 wherein the Adjudicating authority confirmed the total demand as proposed along with interest and penalty and ordered for appropriation of amount of ₹ 130,992/- as duty and interest of ₹ 33,622/- as paid by the Appellant. On Appeal, before the Lower Appellate Authority, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), upheld the Adjudication Order and rejected the appeal before him. Thus, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Shri Ankit Kanodia, CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri K. Chowdhury, A.R. appeared on behalf of the respondent department. 5. The Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2004 for proportionate reversal of Cenvat credit during the said period has already been done by the Appellant. The Appellant has also produced a Chartered Accountant s certificate showing the reversals made for the FY 2014-15 on account of following the procedure as per Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004. Also a verification report as submitted by the Range office of the Appellant is placed on record which shows that the Appellant has actually reversed Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubt as to the fact that the Appellant has actually followed the process of proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 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 along with interest. Therefore, I am of the considered 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 should not have been issued. Additionally, the Revenue has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
