TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay and June, 2009. The amendment carried out by Notification No. 6/2010-CE cannot be given retrospective effect. Imposition of penalty u/r 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - the said sub-Rule provides for penalty where Cenvat credit in respect of inputs have been utilized wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of Excise Act or Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. We find the findings of the lower Authorities are devoid of merit in this regard. Admittedly the duty free clearances were entered in the ER-1 for the month of May 2009 and June 2009. The Original Authority records that Notification No. 6/2006-CE was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 vide impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 07/11/2012. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that provisions of clause (vii) of sub-Rule (6) of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the case laws relied upon by the appellant these are on general principles of interpretation of exemption notification and no case is covering the facts now bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification. 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 reason of fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of Excise Act or Rules made thereunder wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
