9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inished excisable goods to Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project without payment of duty under Notification No. 46/2008 CE dated 14/08/2008. Since they have not maintained separate account of inputs used for manufacture of exempted final products, proceedings were initiated against them to demand and recover an amount equal to 10% of value of such exempted goods cleared in terms of Rule 6 (3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The period involved is May 2009 and June 2009. The show cause notice was issued on 15/04/2010. The Original Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 22,88,591/- and imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, this order was confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions are made for application of this provision under sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the period when the final products were cleared by the appellant, there is no such exclusion for Mega Power Projects in the application of Rule 6 (3). We find the appellant s plea that the amendment carried out in sub-Rule (6) of Rule 6 vide Notification No. 6/2010-CE dated 27/02/2010, should be considered clarificatory and apply to the clearances made in May and June, 2009, as legally unsustainable. There is nothing in the amending notification to indicate such presumption. We find that the amendment carried out by Notification No. 6/2010-CE cannot be given retrospective effect as pleaded by the appellant. We have also examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . There is nothing to indicate that the clearances to these power projects should be considered for exclusion even before the amendment carried out by the said notification. We find no legal basis for such interpretation. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants on the demand confirmed by the lower Authorities. 6. The appellants also contested the imposition of penalty equal to the amount confirmed. We find the lower Authorities imposed a penalty equal to the amount confirmed under Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The penalty was imposed under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We find that the said sub-Rule provides for penalty where Cenvat credit in respect of inputs have been utilized wrongly by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
