9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant is engaged in the manufacture of automotive (car) parts and components which include seats and door interiors of various models of Honda Cars which are supplied to M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. hereafter referred to as HSCIL ) who used the same in further manufacture of cars. The appellants pay Central Excise duty on the manufacture of such parts and components. 2.2. Sometimes, in order to ensure quality standards, HSCIL themselves provided certain CKD parts to the Appellant on free of cost basis for manufacture of motor parts of the car, on payment of appropriate duty/reversal of credit. 2.3. HSCIL reversed the Cenvat credit to the extent of CVD paid by them on the CKD parts imported by them but did not reverse the 4% SAD Compo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring No.V(15) Adj./Noida/Techsun/113/09/11995-998 dated 17.08.2009 was issued to the appellant proposing to recover and deny the benefit of Cenvat credit amounting to INR 69,34,497 taken on the strength of supplementary invoice under Rule 14 r/w section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR. The appellant filed a detailed reply denying all the allegations in the show cause notice. 2.9. The said show cause noted was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 30.08.2010 by the Commissioner of Central Excise Noida wherein, the demand of INR 69,34,497 was confirmed along with interest and an equivalent penalty was imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods wrongly and such inputs or capital goods become liable to confiscation and the person who takes such cenvat credit becomes liable to imposition of penalty. He has further submitted that the decision of this Tribunal was confirmed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court as reported at 2014 (308) E.L.T. A118 (Bombay). 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for revenue who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, we find that in the present case provisions of Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 are applicable since the explanation 1 below the said Sub-section is not invokable in the present case for the reason that Revenue could not establish that there was intention t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
