9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of this the demand Central Excise duty is barred by period of limitation and therefore, the demand on this ground not sustainable. CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT:- It is matter of record that the Cenvat credit on CVD was availed by the appellant on the basis of valid import documents namely bills of entry. The availment of Cenvat credit on a later date then receipt of duty paid inputs in the factory premises is not a bar under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this regard, reliance placed upon this Tribunal decision in the case of STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR [ 2001 (1) TMI 144 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] where it was held that ' credit taken beyond six months period prior to 29-6-1995 was not to be reversed.' Penalties imposed on the partners and employees of the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- It is matter of record that goods which have been manufactured and cleared by the appellant were duty paid though they have been classified wrongly under different Chapter heading however this being a matter of interpretation and further since the mistake has been co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and crystal glass which come to Rs. 25,65,979/-. Out of Cenvat credit of Rs. 25,65,979/-, appellant have availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 7,58,506/- on receipt of imported goods and the balance Cenvat credit of Rs. 18,07,473/- was availed on 31.01.2008. 2.1 The department issued a show cause notice dated 18.04.2011 whereunder Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 25,37,346/- has been demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 invoking the extended time proviso. Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 18,07,473/- has also been demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Penalties have also been proposed on Shri Dilip Ganguly and Shri Pijush Raha, Partners and Shri Shantilal Joshi, Shri Maganlal Chowdhary, Managers of the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The matter has been adjudicated by the learned Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 04.04.2013 whereunder the demand of Central Excise as well as Cenvat credit has been confirmed and penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the partners of the appellant as well as Managers/Authorised signatory has been imposed. The appellant an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g documents namely bills of entry. It has been submitted by the learned advocate that sub-rule-1 of Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that manufacture can avail Cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of finished products immediately on receipt and there is no time-limit prescribed under Rule 4 which can bar the assessee from availing the Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture on their finished products. The learned advocate has referred to CBEC Circular No. 345/2/2000-TRU dated 29.08.2000 wherein it has been clarified that while Rule57AC of Central Excise Rules, 1944, that Cenvat credit may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory. However, this does not mean that if the manufacturer does not take credit immediately on receipt of inputs in the factory he would be denied the benefit of Cenvat credit. The learned advocate has relied on the Tribunal s decision in this regard in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2001 (129) ELT 459 wherein it has been held that Cenvat credit is not deniable if credit is taken after 3-4 years on the basis of the valid duty paying documents by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation and therefore, we find that demand on this ground not sustainable. 7. So far as the availment of Cenvat credit of Rs. 18,07,473/- on 31.01.2008 is concerned, we find that it is matter of record that the Cenvat credit on CVD was availed by the appellant on the basis of valid import documents namely bills of entry. We find that availment of Cenvat credit on a later date then receipt of duty paid inputs in the factory premises is not a bar under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this regard, we rely upon this Tribunal decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2001 (129) ELT 459, the relevant extract is reproduced below:- 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We note that in the instant case the fact is that Modvat credit was taken after a period of 3 to 4 years from the date of issue of duty paying documents. We note that Modvat credit has been disallowed and recovery orders have been passed under the Modvat scheme. We note that the question whether Modvat credit came within the scope and ambit of Section 11A or proviso thereof we find that the appellant cited and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other persons, if any, in the said proceedings shall also be deemed to be concluded.] [(2) Any person, who issues - (i) an excise duty invoice without delivery of the goods specified therein or abets in making such invoice; or (ii) any other document or abets in making such document, on the basis of which the user of said invoice or document is likely to take or has taken any ineligible benefit under the Act or the rules made thereunder like claiming of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or refund, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the amount of such benefit or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater.] It is matter of record that goods which have been manufactured and cleared by the appellant were duty paid though they have been classified wrongly under different Chapter heading however this being a matter of interpretation and further since the mistake has been corrected by them at the later stage by paying differential amount of duty, the very fact that the goods were cleared on payment of duty and on valid invoices therefore invoking penal provision under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is legally not justifiable and therefore, we feel that impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
