TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for imposition of penalty on him under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty by Shri Pawan Batra, DGM for hearing of their appeal is waived. Credit had been taken by Bhiwadi Unit on the basis of the supplementary invoices issued by the Chopanki Unit while non-reversal of this credit by the Chopanki Unit was deliberate - Held that:- Following decision of Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. - [2005 (6) TMI 182 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] it is held that Rule 9(1)(b) is not-applicable in case of inter-unit transfer, the appellant have a prima facie case in their favour and as such, the requirement of pre-deposit of cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty is waived for hearing of their ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and as such, there was no physical removal of the inputs from the Chopanki Unit to Bhiwadi Unit as those inputs had been used only in the job work for the Bhiwadi Unit. Sometimes, in such cases, Chopanki Unit reversed the cenvat credit, but in a number of cases, it did not revere the credit in respect of the inputs which were used in the job work of the Bhiwadi Unit. The first demand of cenvat credit of ₹ 9.24 crores against Chopanki Unit is on this ground i.e. in respect of inputs which were used by the Chopanki Unit in the job work for the manufacture of compounded rubber for the Bhiwadi Unit. There is no dispute that the Chopanki Unit has already paid ₹ 2.01 Crores out of ₹ 9.24 crores during investigation against sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required under Rule 3(5) and hence, in such cases, on the basis of the invoices issued by Chopanki Unit, the Bhiwadi Unit cannot avail cenvat credit. The cenvat credit demand of ₹ 2.67 crores against Bhiwadi Unit is on this basis. 1.4. In view of the above facts the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur has passed the following three orders:- (a) Order-in-original No.124 dated 29.01.2014 confirming demand of ₹ 9.24 crores against Chopanki Unit under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules along with the interest thereon under Section 11AB and besides this, imposed penalty of ₹ 7.45 crores on Chopanki Unit. In this order, the Commissioner has also imposed penalty of ₹ 30 lakhs on Shri Pawan Batra, Dy. General Manage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversal of the cenvat credit is required, that in this regard, they rely upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the cases of H.V. Axles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2012 (279) ELT 95 (Tribunal-Kolkata) , DCM Engineering Products Vs. CCE, Jalandhar - 2010 (251) ELT 91 (Tribunal-Delhi) , and Mutual Mecaplast Ltd. Vs. CCE, Daman - 2007 (220) ELT 888 (Tribunal-Ahmd.), that in these judgments, it had been held that when the cenvat credit availed inputs are used for job work but are not physically removed from the factory, the cenvat credit is not required to be reversed, that in any case, the appellant have paid an amount of ₹ 2.01 crores during investigation and hence, the amount already paid is sufficient for compliance with the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use of that synthetic rubber in the job work when the Chopanki Unit raised invoices on the Bhiwadi Unit, no duty was required to be paid in terms of Rule 3(5) and the Bhiwadi Unit could not take the cenvat credit, that it is well settled law that for considering the cenvat credit in respect of some inputs received by a manufacturer, the payment of duty on the supplier's end cannot be reviewed and in this regard, the appellant rely upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. - 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC) and that in view of the above submissions, so far as the appeal against the order-in-original no.127 dated 6.2.2014 is concerned, the requirement of pre-deposit of the cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the stay application no. E/Stay/53108/2004 filed by the appellant company in respect of the Chopanki Unit is concerned, the amount of ₹ 2.01 crores already paid is sufficient for hearing of their appeal and the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of demand, interest and penalty is waived for hearing of their appeal. 7. Coming to the stay application no.E/Stay/53207/2014-EX in Appeal No.E/52847/2014 filed by Bhiwadi Unit of the appellant company, in this case the cenvat credit demand of ₹ 2.01 crores has been confirmed against the appellant by invoking Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that this credit had been taken by Bhiwadi Unit on the basis of the supplementary invoices issued by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
