9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1985. The Appellants were registered with the Central Excise department on 14.03.2011. On registration, they requested the Department to avail CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 1,35,133/- involved on the inputs lying in stock and the inputs contained in the finished goods as on that date. On verification, it was found that the input quantity involving credit of Rs. 61,953/- was not available in stock as on 14.03.2011. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice was issued to them for disallowing the credit wrongly availed, with a proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after analyzing the evidences, recorded his finding supported by the evidences on record about the inadmissibility of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 61,953/- against the total claim of Rs. 1,35,133/-. At Para 6 of the order, it is recorded as under:- "6. The sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 provides: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the inputs lying in stock or in process or inputs contained in final products lying in stock on the date on which any goods manufactured by the said manufacturer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudicating Authority in this regard is just and proper. As the CENVAT Credit is found to be ineligible, the order of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the recovery of interest and imposition of penalty in the impugned order is found to be just and proper. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority. As such, the appeal filed by the Appellant deserves to be rejected." 7. I do not find any reason to interfere with said finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, in my view, the Appellants should have been allowed to exercise option to pay 25% of the penalty subject to conditions laid down under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Gujrat High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
