9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purpose of galvanization and the appellant has availed Cenvat credit on the zinc ingots. The appellant has cleared the final product namely galvanized steel structure on payment of duty. However, they have not paid the Excise Duty on the zinc scarp emerged during the course of manufacture - the zinc scrap emerged during the course of manufacture are chargeable to Central Excise Duty. However, it is observed that the appellant has cleared the zinc scrap on the delivery challan and as not discharged Central Excise Duty on the same. Accordingly, the Lower Authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of Excise duty of Rs.8,25,921/- along with interest on the zinc scrap cleared without payment of duty. Whether the demand for excise duty on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the demand. Invocation of the extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The entire issue has come to the light only on the basis of the investigation conducted by the Headquarters preventive unit. The appellant has not disclosed these details in any of the returns filed by them. Thus, the suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty has been established in this case and hence the extended period has been rightly invoked. Conclusion - i) The Lower Authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of Excise duty of Rs.8,25,921/- along with interest on the zinc scrap cleared without payment of duty. ii) The Lower Authorities have rightly confirmed the demand of Rs.1,68,936/- on the clearance of steel structural. iii) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were cleared 'as such' by the appellant, without reversal of the credit availed. On adjudication, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demands of Excise duty of Rs.8,25,921/- on the clearance of zinc scrap to M/s.Anusha Metchem for the period May 2006-March 2009. He also confirmed the Excise duty of Rs.1,68,936/- for clearance of structural grills during February 2010. The Adjudicating Authority also ordered for recovery of Rs.1,02,358/- for non-reversal of Cenvat availed on the inputs which were cleared 'as such' on 27.11.2009. The Adjudicating Authority also demanded interest and imposed penalty of Rs.10,97,215/- under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of the CCR, 2004. 2. On Appeal the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P) Ltd. 3.3. Regarding the invocation of larger period, the appellants submits that they have not suppressed any information before the department and there is no intention to evade tax. Hence, the appellant submitted that the demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. In support of the above contention, the appellant relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments[1989 (40) ELT 276(SC)] and Continental Foundation Jt. Venture vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I [2007(216) ELT 177 (SC)]. Thus, by relying on the decisions cited above, the appellant submits that the demands confirmed in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, they have not paid the Excise Duty on the zinc scarp emerged during the course of manufacture. The appellant submitted that they have considered the scrap as non-manufacturing scrap and hence duty was not paid. I find that the explanation given by the appellant is not acceptable. It is a fact on record that the zinc scrap emerged during the course of manufacture of galvanized steel structural. As the appellant has availed Cenvat credit on the zinc ingots used in the manufacture of galvanize scrap, I hold that the zinc scrap emerged during the course of manufacture are chargeable to Central Excise Duty. However, it is observed that the appellant has cleared the zinc scrap on the delivery challan and as not discharged Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the Cenvat credit availed on the same, on 27.11.2009. The appellant has given the explanation that non-reversal has happened due to change in personnel, due to the amalgamation of the Appellant's company with M/s.Crown Fabricators (P) Ltd. I find the explanation of the Appellant not acceptable. The appellant is liable to reverse the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs when the same are cleared 'as such'. As the appellant has not reversed the credit availed on the inputs, I find that Lower Authorities have righty confirmed the demand. Accordingly, I uphold the same. 6.4. Regarding the invocation of the extended period to confirm the demands, the appellant submitted that they have not suppressed any information before the department and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
