Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (1) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppressing the relevant information from the Department and, therefore, the longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 57-I(i)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has been correctly invoked. For the same reason penalty under Rule 57-I(4) of Central Excise Rules, 1944/ Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 has also been correctly imposed - Thus, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed. - E/1253/2005 - 94/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 21-1-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Sunil Kumar, DR, for the Appellant. Shri S. Yadav, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stwhile Central Excise Rules 1944/Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as well as Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 1.2 The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-I vide order-in-original dated 17-9-04 by which the Modvat/Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 8,49,895/- was confirmed alongwith interest and beside this, penalty of equal amount was also imposed on the respondent. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal No. 433 (MPM) CE/JPR-I/2004 dated 20-12-2004 set aside the Joint Commissioner s order and allowed the appeal following the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Tirunelveli v. Sudar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch was used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted finished product had never declared to the department that they had also taken Cenvat credit in respect of the fuel which was used for generation of electricity which, in turn, was used in the manufacture of fully exempted finished products and, that in view of this longer limitation period of five years has been correctly invoked and penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 readwith Section 11AC and under Erstwhile Rule 571(4) of Erstwhile Central Excise Rules has been correctly imposed. 2.2 Shri S. Yadav, Advocate, the learned Counsel representing the respondent, defended the Impugned order reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and cited the judgment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d thus :- 9. As can be seen from the submissions, the contention of the assessee is that exclusion of fuel-inputs from the purview of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 would mean that such inputs are also automatically excluded from sub-rule (1) whereas according to the Department sub-rule (1) is a general rule which provides, that except for the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2), CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods and even though fuel-inputs are excluded from sub-rule (2), such inputs would still fall under sub-rule (1). 10. In our view, sub-rule (1) is plenary. It restates a principle, namely, that CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respect of goods used as fuel and on such application, the credit will not be permissible on such quantity of fuel which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods. In our view, the above aspect has not been properly appreciated by the Gujarat High Court in the above case of M/s. Gujarat Narmada Valley reported in 2006 (193) E.LT. 136 (supra). 5. As regards the question of longer limitation period under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 readwith proviso to Section 11A(1) and Rule 57-I(i)(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, we find that though in this case the respondent were manufacturing dutiable as well as finished final products and knew that a part of the electricity generated out of cenvated furnace oil was being used i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates