TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided to discharge central excise duty liability in respect of the goods supplied to them by the appellant - Also paid the custom duties (BCD + CVD + SAD) foregone in respect of the inputs (components) imported by the appellant under DEEC scheme - Following this payment of duties of customs by PGCIL, the appellant took CENVAT credit of the CVD - Subsequently, World Bank funding of PGCIL's project was cleared and eventually the customs duties paid by PGCIL came to be refunded to them - SCN issued on ground that challan used for availing CENVAT credit was not a valid document for such availment of credit Held that:- It is borne on record that the CENVAT credit of CVD taken by the appellant was reversed by them soon after the changed circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant had imported inputs duty-free under advance licences issued to them by the DGFT. The excisable goods manufactured from these inputs by the appellant were supplied to PGCIL without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.8.1995 during the period 31.7.2001 to 4.3.2002. These products were intended to be used in the execution of PGCI's project financed by World Bank. However, as World Bank loan did not materialize, a major condition attached to Notification No.108/95-CE ibid remanded without compliance and, in that situation, PGCIL decided to discharge central excise duty liability in respect of the goods supplied to them by the appellant. They not only discharged this liability but also paid the custom duties (BCD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these circumstances, the enhancement of penalty was unwarranted. The learned Superintended (AR) argues in support of the appellate Commissioner's order. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have found a valid point for the appellant against enhancement of penalty. It is borne on record that the CENVAT credit of CVD taken by the appellant was reversed by them soon after the changed circumstances were noted by them. The enhancement of penalty by the lower appellate authority is, therefore, not justifiable. As we have already noted, the appellant has no serious grievance against the demand of duty/interest. 6. In the result, the enhancement of penalty is set aside and the rest of the impugned order is sustained. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
