9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent to the Superintendent of the Excise Department - The Supreme Court in CHANDRAPUR MAGNET WIRES (P) LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, NAGPUR [ 1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT ] and COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. PRECOT MERIDIAN LTD. [ 2015 (11) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT ] held that reversal of credit means that the party has not availed the input service credit. Such being the position, the imposition of penalty of ₹ 30,00,000/- upon the Respondent in respect of the electricity sold to the Electricity Board is bad in law - cross-objections is allowed. - MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. C. L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Ravi Kapoor, Authorised Representative of the Appellant Shri Hemant Bajaj and Ms. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer Plant for generating power, which power was partly consumed in the factory of the Respondents and also transferred to the sister concerns of the Respondent. It was also partly sold to M/S Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited [The Electricity Board]. The Respondent claims that it had been reversing the CENVAT credit pertaining to the electricity sold to Electricity Board on a monthly basis on its own but was not reversing the CENVAT credit in relation to the electricity transferred to the sister concerns. The Department objected to the availment of CENVAT credit by the Respondent on inputs proportionate to the electricity transferred to the sister units and also on that portion sold to the Electricity Board. This resulted in the issuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- was also imposed upon the respondent under rule 15(1) of the Rules, for availing CENVAT credit on inputs attributable to electricity sold outside. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner to the extent the demand of ₹ 6,36,96,763/- was dropped by the Commissioner, the Department preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. The Respondent also preferred cross objections against the imposition of penalty of ₹ 30,00,000/- (₹ 20,00,000+₹ 10,00,000). The Tribunal by order dated April 6, 2017 rejected the appeal filed by the Department holding that CENVAT credit on inputs attributable to electricity wheeled out to its sister units were admissible under the Rules. The cross- objections filed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent have been considered. 11. The two cross-objections relate to the imposition of penalty amounting to ₹ 30,00,000/- imposed in relation to the electricity sold by the Respondent to the Electricity Board. The contention of the Respondent is that though it had availed CENVAT credit on inputs used in the plant for generating power that was partly sold to the Electricity Board, but it had reversed the CENVAT credit pertaining to the said electricity sold to the Electricity Board regularly on a monthly basis on its own. This factual position has not been disputed and in fact is also clear from a perusal the documents enclosed with the cross-objections, particularly the letter dated January 25, 2012 sent by the Respondent to the Superinte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
