TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 965X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Return, they would have taken advantage of reduced rate of duty - the clearance of the impugned goods has rightly been done at the prevalent rate at the time of clearance of the goods. Penalties - Held that:- Once the ER-I Return has specifically been filed, there is a mention in the PVC, which is evident in the show cause notice itself - there is no suppression of material facts by the appellant with the Department and it is not fit for imposition of penalty, therefore, the penalty is required to be set aside in this case. CENVAT Credit - input services - insurance premium of cars, which were registered in the name of partners of the appellant firm - Held that:- Since it is being used in furtherance of the purpose of the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed goods and 24 price variation invoices on 01.01.2009 in respect of clearances of their said goods effected during the period from 31.10.2008 to 05.12.2008 and paid the differential duty @ 14% and 10% Adv. respectively as prevalent on 01.09.2008 and 01.01.2009 i.e. prevalent at the time of issue of the said price variation invoices. In view of the above, it is alleged that the appellant have short paid duty amounting to ₹ 1,05,380/- including education cess secondary higher education cess. (ii) The second issue involved in this case is regarding the availment of input service credit of ₹ 3,690/- on insurance premium of cars, which were registered in the name of partners of the appellant firm although payment of duty made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee having been the intention of opting for the lower rate as per E-I Return, they would have taken advantage of reduced rate of duty. So, we hold that the clearance of the impugned goods has rightly been done at the prevalent rate at the time of clearance of the goods. 8. As far as imposition of penalties is concerned, ld. Advocate brought to our notice that the fact regarding the PVC has also been mentioned and ER-Return, which has also been intimated to the Department. So, we are of the view once the ER-I Return has specifically been filed, there is a mention in the PVC, which is evident in the show cause notice itself. We hold that there is no suppression of material facts by the appellant with the Department and it is not fit f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
