9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1784X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bric', pertains to the availment of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,86,49,718/- which was sought to be recovered, along with interest thereon, and the imposition of penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in order-in-original no. 22/CEX/2008 dated 30th December 2008 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I. The show cause notice proposed recovery of total of Rs. 3,02,38,918/-, covering the period from July 2006 to August 2007 and Rs. 1,15,89,200 covering the period from April 2007 to August 2007 at 10% of value of exempted goods for failure to maintain separate set of accounts, as prescribed in rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, of inputs utilised in common for manu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold that the duty demanded in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 amounting to Rs. 1,15,89,200/- cannot be sustained and is liable to be dropped.' 3. Revenue is in appeal against the dropping of penal provisions proposed to be imposed on Shri PKC Bose, Director of the assessee-company and has sought condonation of delay of 3148 days in filing of their appeal which was attributed to the mistake in proceeding with the assessee as respondent instead of the individual and the rectification for conformity with the review ordered by the competent authority. The justification offered for this delay appears to be acceptable. We condone the delay and as the appeal of the assessee is listed for disposal today, the appeal of Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the liability under rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 by availment of appropriate CENVAT credit, it would appear that the differential recovery of Rs. 11,79,366/- should sustain. We, therefore, limit the liability of the assessee to this amount. 6. Learned Counsel for appellant made vehement arguments to contest the imposition of penalty as the demand does not lie entirely within the period of statutory limitation. We find that the imposition of penalty should be restricted to the amount held as recoverable supra and not to the quantum of liability for which CENVAT credit of inputs used in exempted materials was availed. Needless to say, discharge of this liability of Rs. 11,78,366/- would render the assessee eligible for the reducti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
