9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintaining separate accounts for receipts, consumption and inventory of input and input services meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products. It appeared to the Department that the appellants had not correctly reversed the attributable credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of sugar, relating to molasses used in the clearances of non-excisable rectified spirit/ENA. Accordingly, three SCNs were issued to the appellants as follows:- 1. SCN No. 15/9/2007 dated 04.05.2007 Period of dispute: January 2006 to June 2006 Amount: Rs. 6,32,781/- proposed to impose penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 2. SCN No. 15/31/2007 dated 29.08.2007 Period of dispute: August 2006 to June 2007 Amount: Rs. 56,87,961/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants have not included the input services credit while computing the rate of reversal of credit is factually wrong. It is evident from the department's working and the workings submitted by the appellants that the rate of reversal arrived at by the appellants are inclusive of input service credit. v) The appellants had already reversed more the credit than what ought to have been paid by them as per Rule 6 (3) (a) of the CCR 2004. Therefore, nothing more needs to be paid by them and hence the imposition of penalty is not maintainable. 3. On the other hand, Ld. AR, Shri A. Cletus, ADC, appearing on behalf of Revenue supports the adjudication. He further submits that for the period January 2006 to July 2006, appellant while cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 6 (3) (a) of the Rules. 5.3 We are of the considered opinion that such an averment would require to be verified. Accordingly, for the limited purpose for causing verifying the claim of the appellant that the entire quantum of Cenvat credit required to be reversed as indeed been reversed, the matter is remanded for denovo adjudication. In case, this claim of the appellant is found correct, no further demand will arise in respect of Cenvat credit required to be reversed attributable to inputs used in exempted goods. Further, in keeping with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, LTU, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar.) and also by the Hon'ble High Court of Madr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mis-statement either in the SCNs or in the impugned orders. In fact, the provision for imposition of penalty equal to credit taken or availed wrongly is only available in sub-rules 2 & 3 of Rule 15 of CCE, 04. However, both the SCNs have merely proposed penalty under Rule 15 ibid without specifically indicating the concerned sub-rule thereof. Keeping all these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed on the appellants in both the impugned orders under Rule 15 ibid cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside, which we hereby do. The penalties are set aside. 6. In the result, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand for the limited purpose as elucidated in para 5.3 above. Both the appeals are disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
