9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of duty by reason of fraud or collusion or any willful statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty. These are the same elements which are required to confirm duty invoking the extended period of limitation - the demand of duty upheld by invoking extended period of limitation in the final order and, therefore, penalty under section 11AC invariably follows and there is no discretion in the matter - there is no mistake in not giving a separate finding on the penalty under section 11AC. Computation by adjusting the cenvat credit available on inputs used was not considered - HELD THAT:- There are no provision in the Act or Rules by whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant s submission contesting imposition of 100% penalty under section 11AC readwith Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; (b) No finding has been recorded in the alternative submission of the assessee that the duty payable may be allowed to be computed by adjusting the cenvat credit available on inputs used in the manufacture of Iron and Steel parts input. 3. In Revenue s application E/ROM/50004 of 2021 the alleged error pointed out is that in the concluding paragraph in the final order, the Tribunal has set aside the demand of Rs. 5,35,71,418/- without any reference to the facts of the case and not considering that the previous final order dated 07.05.2018 passed during the first round of litigation had attained finality. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Of course, if duty is payable, the assessee will be entitled to cenvat credit as per the Cenvat Credit Rules and may also able to use the cenvat credit to pay the duty. This, first, of course, will be subject to verification of the availability of cenvat credit as per the rules. 7. As far as the Revenue s application is concerned, the alleged mistake pointed out is that the Tribunal has set aside the demand of Rs. 5,35,71,418/- in the final order without referring to several facts. We find that the concluding paragraphs of the final order i.e. paragraph 15, 16 and 17 have not set aside any demand confirmed by the lower authority. Therefore, this submission of alleged mistake is misconceived. It has been recorded in paragraph 15 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
