Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 833 - CESTAT HYDERABADCENVAT Credit - inputs received from EOU - Rule 3(7)(a) of CCR 2004 - Department was of the view that the appellants have not complied with the provisions of Rule 3(7)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and availed excess credit besides wrongly availing credit of SAD - HELD THAT:- The excess credit on this account is only ₹ 2,28,722/- for the period April 2006 to March 2009 and ₹ 1,23,835 for the period April 2009 to February 2010 where the total credit availed for these periods is above ₹ 3 crores. Therefore the contention of the appellant that this was a mistake in calculation and that they were not aware of the revised formula prescribed in the Rules is acceptable - the demand raised for the extended period cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. Liability for Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant is liable to pay interest - However with regard to penalties, since this has been reversed, penalties imposed in this regard are unwarranted and requires to be set aside. CENVAT Credit of SAD - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/S METACLAD INDUSTRIES VERSUS CCE, MUMBAI-II [2012 (11) TMI 244 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that there is no warrant to restrict the scope of the term additional duty of customs occurring in the formula to only the additional duty leviable under sub-section (1) of section 3 and not to the additional duty leviable under sub section (5) thereof. The impugned orders are modified to the extent of setting aside the credit availed on SAD as well as credit availed on inputs for the extended period - demand of credit availed on inputs for the normal period as well as interest thereof is upheld - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|