Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 499 - CESTAT BANGALORECenvat Credit - Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses, rectified spirit etc and is availing CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs - They have a captive power generation plant, which is run by steam which is produced in the factory by the use of boilers wherein water treated with certain chemicals is used. The power generated by the captive power plant is partly used within the factory in the manufacture of final products, the surplus electricity being supplied to the AP Transmission Corporation – Held that:- The first show-cause notice was issued on 05.01.2007 for the period from December 2001 to November 2006. The rest of the show-cause notices were issued within the normal period. The respondent has paid duty with interest for the normal period in the wake of the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore the question whether CENVAT credit on inputs used in the generation of electricity supplied to the AP Transmission Corporation during any part of the period of dispute does not survive. Moreover, this issue stands settled against the respondent in the present case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ] Extended period of limitation – Intention to evade payment of duty – Held that:- In the instant case, the respondent did not deny the department’s allegation that they had contravened various provisions with intent to evade payment of duty - Respondent had not contested the demand of duty in the first show-cause notice on the ground of limitation - Respondent did not deny the allegation that they had suppressed the sale of surplus electricity to the AP Transmission Corporation and the contravention of Rules with intent to evade payment of duty - This allegation was raised in the show-cause notice both in the context of invoking the extended period of limitation and in the context of invoking the penal provisions of Section 11AC. In the total absence of denial of this allegation, it has to be held that the respondent is liable to be mulcted with a penalty under Section 11AC and also extended period of limitation is invokable on them – Decided in favor of revenue.
|