TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the amount was admitted by the Mumbai unit, the extended period of limitation would be invoked. But, Mumbai unit paid duty and issued supplementary invoice to the sister unit - Department has not disputed the transaction between the Appellant and its sister unit. It is noted that the differential duty was paid for price of escalation, which was paid by sister unit. Hence, the decision of Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd (2010 (2) TMI 524 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) would be applicable in the present case. As the decision of Honble High Court is directly on the issue, the decision of Mumbai Tribunal as relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative is not applicable. - CENVAT Credit taken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 10,36,468.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of CENVAT Credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication order. 2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant submits that it is a case of stock transfer and there is no sale. Therefore, Rule 9(b) of said Rules cannot be invoked. In this context, the learned Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant portion of the Adjudication order. He strongly relied upon the decision of Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Karnataka Soaps Detergents Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore 2010 (258) ELT 62 (Kar.). 3. On the other hand, the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, there cannot be sale. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Appellant had not taken any categorical stand that there is no sale. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Appellant received the goods from their sister unit. Revenue has not disputed this fact. Thus, it is obvious that there cannot be sale in inter unit stock transfer of the same Company. Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Karnataka Soaps Detergents Ltd (supra) in the context of Rule 7(1)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 pari materia to Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 observed that the credit availed on the basis of supplementary invoices in respect of differential duty paid on internal stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inputs or capital goods on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act or of the Customs Act, 1962 or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. In order to apply the embargo provided under above rule and deprive the assessee of availing Cenvat credit there should be sale. The documents referred to in Rule 7(1)(b) are illustrative in nature which would demonstrate that duty has been paid or evidencing paying of duty. 6. In the present case, I find that the Department has not disputed the transaction between the Appellant and its sister unit. It is noted that the differential duty was paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
