9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24,421/- and Rs. 31,381/- along with interest thereon for an amount of Rs. 3,11,608/- and has also imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and a penalty of Rs. 1,98,62,309/- for the offences committed by them in respect of their clearances of the exempted goods during the period 07/2005 to 09/2006. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 3. The case against the appellant, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. is that he appellant cleared dutiable and exempted goods during the period March 2003 to June 2005 without maintaining separate accounts in respect of exempted goods. These supplies were made to Indian Navy claiming the benefit of duty exemption Notification No. 64/95-CE dated 16/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question of confirmation of such demand along with interest and imposing penalties is clearly unsustainable in law. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand submits that under Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, goods supplied under Notification No. 64/95-CE had been specifically excluded and therefore, the appellant did not have the option to pay a sum @ 8% of the value of exempted goods and the appellants were required to pay an amount equivalent to the Cenvat Credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products at the time of clearance from the factory. Inasmuch as the appellant did not do this, they were liable to pay the differential Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utable to the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the exempted final products. It is also on record that the appellant has subsequently paid up the differential duty demanded on their own. The time limitation prescribed in the statute does not obliterate the liability of the appellant to pay the duty in accordance with the law. It only prohibits the enforcement of demand by the competent authority. Inasmuch as the appellant has discharged the liability which is in accordance with the law, the appellant cannot seek refund/reimbursement of the amount already paid. The decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indian Cements Ltd. [1984 (18) ELT 499 (Tri) and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala [AIR 1966 Kerala 121] refer. 7. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
