TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20002/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21628/2018 - Dated:- 22-10-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. B. Venugopal, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 20.9.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter Heading 1701 1190 and 1703 1000 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the CENVAT credit of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , confirmed the demand of recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 2,61,527/- along with applicable interest and also penalty of ₹ 2,61,527/- was imposed under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 194. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedents and the statutory provisions. He further submitted that as soon as the audit pointed out the irregular availment of various credits, thereafter, the appellants reversed the same along with interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision rendered in the case of CCE vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd.: 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar.). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have availed the CENVAT credit wrongly but the same was reversed along with interest after being pointed out by the audit party. Further, I find that the appellants have shown the CENVAT credit in their ER-1 returns and the computation sheet attached with the show-cause notice also clearly shows that the audit party dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
