9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.02.2011 and 29.03.2011. As these amounts have been paid and reported by the Appellant either on his own violation or on being pointed out by the Revenue Authorities, the short payment if any on this account should have been questioned and a show cause notice issued within one year from the date of receipt of these letters dated 11.02.2011 and 29.03.2011 as per the provisions of Section 11A(3). For such payment there cannot be any reason for invocation of extended period of limitation for making a demand by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A (4) to the extent of these amounts paid. There are no merits in the impugned order invoking extended period of limitation. For remaining amounts, it is found that the whole issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the words used in the sub-section 11A(4). Appeal allowed. - P. K. CHOUDHARY MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And SANJIV SRIVASTAVA MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Atul Gupta , Advocate Ms. Aayushi Srivastava , Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. K. Choudhary , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER SANJIV SRIVASTAVA : Both the appeals are directed against the Order-in-Original No.KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-028-15-16 dated 11.01.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Kanpur. By the impugned order following has been held as under:- ORDER 1. I deny the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.3,64,06,128/- (Rs. Three Crores Sixty Four Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Six only), wrongly availed and utilized by M/s Pepsico Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inpur, Ramabai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, for the reasons discussed here-in-above. 5. I do not impose any penalty upon Shri Kaushik Mitra, Director of M/s Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd., A-2, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Jainpur, Ramabai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the reasons discussed here-in-above. 2.1 Appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of excisable goods classifiable under heading 22011020, 22021010, 22029020 and 22021090 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing of Cenvat Credit as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g to Rs.48,132.00, why the same should not be appropriated against the demand of Cenvat credit. c) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Ruse 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.4 Appellant 02 who is authorized signatory of the appellant was also called upon to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.5 Show cause notice has been adjudicated as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above. Aggrieved Appellants have filed these appeals. 3.1 We have heard Shri Atul Gupta Ms. Aayushi Srivastava Advocate for the Appellants and Shri A. K. Choudhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section and the period of one year shall be computed from the date of receipt of information under sub-section (2). For such payment there cannot be any reason for invocation of extended period of limitation for making a demand by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A (4) to the extent of these amounts paid. We do not find any merits in the impugned order invoking extended period of limitation. 4.3 For remaining amounts, we find that the whole issue is that credit has been taken against the bill of entries; however at the time of Audit/scrutiny, Appellant produced photocopies of the bill of entries as original was not traceable. Nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004 provide that the burden of proof regarding admissibility of credit rests upon the manufacturer and in case of minor defects, the assessee is required to seek permission from the jurisdictional Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner for condonation and availing CENVAT credit. In this case, I observe that the party has placed reliance upon such provisions being available in the law for condonation of the lapses, but surprisingly, I find that the party itself has never applied for any such permission. In view of the fact that the party never approached the jurisdictional Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner with request to condone the technical lapse and allow such Credit, as per provisions under the said Rules, I find that the party miserably failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
