TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.54160/14 - Final Order No. A/70119/2016-SM - Dated:- 21-3-2016 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Rajesh Chibber, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri D. K. Deb, Asstt.Commr. (A.R.) ORDER PER MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY : The appellant is a manufacturer of krafts paper and MS Ingots, is in appeal against order in appeal dated 13/1/14 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Meerut-I, by which demand of duty under Rule 3 (5) and Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, ₹ 2,16,300/- have been upheld along with interest and penalty of equal amount have been imposed under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tracts duty @ 10.3% including cess and accordingly, duty of ₹ 2,16,300/- was demanded. It is further stated that the appellant did not bring this fact into knowledge of the Department and accordingly, indicates mala fide intention to evade duty on the transaction value of the boiler. 2.1 The appellant contested the show cause notice and the same was adjudicated and the proposed demand was confirmed along with equal amount of penalty under rule 15 of CCR read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order have been pleased to reject the appeal observing that the appellant failed to submit relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued that no demand can be raised on the basis of presumption of having availed Cenvat credit, when the appellant have categorically denied of availing of any Cenvat credit, nor the revenue could bring any facts on record in support of the same. It is further contention that there is no suppression of facts by the appellant as the revenue audit found the facts from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant in the ordinary course of business. He further states that for argument sake even if it is presumed that the appellant took Cenvat credit at the time of purchase in the year 1997, even then under Rule 3 (5A)(a) which was brought in the Rules earlier and by way of substitution with effect from 27.9.13 provides that if capital goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
