9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Corporation is engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs/tiles by way of cutting marble blocks which are either imported or indigenously procured. During the period June 2007 to Jan 2008, the appellant has imported 6150.460 Sqm of crystalis glass falling under CETSH70169000 and polished marble slabs falling under CETSH 68022110 and used the same for manufacture of marble slabs and marble tiles classifying the same under CETSH 25151220 and 25151290 respectively. The appellant had paid Central Excise duty at the rate Rs. 30 per Sqm, on the marble slabs and tiles cleared by them during the period June 2007 to Jan 2008. 2. The officers of the Revenue department visited the appellant's factory premises on 27/28.02.2008 and pointed out that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 and co-appellants are before us against the above mentioned order-in-original. 3. Shri R. Subramanya, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the show cause notice is barred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are present in their case still the show cause notice has been issued after a lapse of period of three years therefore the entire proceedings are barred by limitation. 4. The learned advocate has submitted that appellant has taken Cenvat credit of Rs. 25,65,979/- on the valid duty paying documents of the raw material which were used in the manufacture of finished product as per provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The learned advocate has submitted that Cenvat credit of Rs. 7,58,506/- was taken immediately on receipt of duty paid raw material and balance amount of Rs. 18,07,473/- has been availed by them on 31.01.2008 on the basis of valid duty paying documents namely bills of entry. It has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay therefore, imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is without any reason. The learned advocate has relied upon the following decisions in this regard:- (a) CCE v. Jai Prakash Motwani - 2010 (258) ELT 204 (Guj.) (b) CCE v. Mahendra Kumar - 2010 (260) ELT 51 (Guj.) (c) Mohammed Farookh Mohammed Ghani - 2010 (259) ELT 179 (Guj.) (d) Pravin N. Shah v. CESTAT - 2014 (305) ELT 480 (Guj.) 5. We have also heard Shri Anoop Kumar Mudvel, learned Superintendent (AR) who reiterated the findings as given in the order-in-original. 6. We have heard both the sides. We find from the facts of the matter that on being pointed out relating to wrong classification of the marble tiles manufactured by them, the appellant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the East Regional Bench. We, therefore, hold that Modvat credit taken by the appellant is sustainable in law. The appeals are, therefore, allowed in the above terms. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law." 8. So far as penalties imposed on the partners and employees of the appellant under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is concerned, it will be proper to have a glance and the same is reproduced below:- Penalty RULE 26. for certain offences. - [(1)]Any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
