TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. [ 2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that the cenvat credit on outward freight from the place of removal was not admissible - though the demand alongwith interest is sustainable on this count however, we find that the charges of wilful suppression are not sustainable against the appellant. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on this issue is legally not sustainable as department already have knowledge of such facts. Availment of credit of ₹ 3283/- beyond six months - HELD THAT:- N/N. 6/2015CE NT dated 01.03.2015 was issued which extended the time limit to avail the cenvat credit on invoices from six months to one year. As per Order-in-Original Cenvat credit on i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of penalties against the appellant vide Order-in-Original dated31.05.2017 on various counts on the basis of show cause notice dated 03.06.2016 against discrepancies found in their records by the visiting audit team. The impugned Orders-in-Appeal upheld the demand but reduced the penalties to 50% under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.The various issues involved in the impugned order-in-appeal are as follows : 1. Non inclusion of value of Hummali/ Tulaicharges in the assessable value : The demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant have collected extra charges on account of Hammali/Tulai' through invoices issued under Central Excise Rules over and above the assessable value on which Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of Rate difference. The total demand confirmed on this count is ₹ 57033/- plus interest out of which the appellant has paid an amount of ₹ 20707/-alongwith interest and the rest of the demand has been contested on the issue of limitation contending that the extended period of limitation was not applicable for the reason as above. However, the appellant has accepted the demand on merits.The imposition of penalty of ₹ 36,326/-(reduced to 50% by Commissioner (Appeals) has also been contested on similar grounds. 3. Claiming of Cenvat credit of Customs Education cess and Customs Secondary Higher Education Cess: The demand has been confirmed holding that the Customs Education Cess and Customs Secondary Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce:- The demand has been confirmed against the Cenvat credit taken on specified document after a period of six months from the date of issue of the said document. The Noticee has availed Cenvat credit on 01.03.2015 on the strength of invoice issued by M/s Essar Steel, Pithampur bearing no. JVV/209/14-15 dated 17.07.2014. The appellant paid the demand of ₹ 3283/- alongwith interest but has contested the penalty of ₹ 3283/- (reduced to 50% by the Commissioner (Appeals) imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the issue of not suppressing any fact. 2. Thus, the only issue before us to decide is whether the demands alongwith interest under extended period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is legally not sustainable as department already have knowledge of such facts. 4. Further as regards the availment of credit of ₹ 3283/- beyond six months is concerned, we find that notification 6/2015CE NT dated 01.03.2015 was issued which extended the time limit to avail the cenvat credit on invoices from six months to one year. As per Order-in-Original Cenvat credit on invoice dated 17.07.2014 has been taken on 01.03.2015 which was rightly availed in view of the amended notification. Thus, the demand alongwith interest and penalty is dropped on this issue. 5. Regarding the other three demands i.e. on the issue of non-inclusion of certain amounts collected for Hummali/ Tulai, non-inclusion of value of recoveries made against d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
