TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l authority has dropped demand of Rs.5,63,42,519/- with regard to the slum sales to Mobis India Ltd. Only a demand of Rs.28,17,475/- has been confirmed alleging that the appellant has not reversed the credit in respect of the SAD. When the appellants have given detail reply to the Show Cause Notice and also filed ER-1 returns reflecting the reversal of credit made by them, the confirmation of demand after a period of 10 years alleging that the appellants have not been able to establish the reversal by producing sufficient document is indeed not fair to the appellant. The observation made by the adjudicating authority for confirming the demand is that the appellants have not provided any evidence to show that they have reversed the SAD in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants are registered with the Central Excise department as manufacturer as well as warehouse under Rule 9 and Rule 20 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 35/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.6.2001 and No. 46/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.6.2001 as amended. 2. During the audit of accounts of the appellant, it was found that they had cleared imported raw materials as such on sale to their vendors and also stock transferred to M/s. Mobis India Ltd. on account of business transfer on payment of duty. However, the excise duty paid on such inputs cleared as such was not equal to the CENVAT credit availed thereon inasmuch as the reversal included only CVD and related cess and not the Special Additional Duty (SAD) levied on import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 3. The learned counsel Shri S.Muthuvenkataraman appeared and argued for the appellant. He submitted that the Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.11.2011 and the appellant had filed detailed reply on 31.5.2012. Thereafter, the adjudication has taken place after a delay of 10 years from the date of issuance of Show Cause Notice. Though the appellant had mentioned in their reply that they had reversed an amount equal to credit and actually have paid amount in excess of the credit availed, they were not able to substantiate the same with documents at the time of hearing. This is because the hearing has taken place after a delay of more than 10 years from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CCR, 2004 . 5. From the above, it is very much clear that the appellant had stated that they have reversed the credit and actually have paid amounts in excess of the credit availed by them. The details of such reversal was mentioned in their ER-1 monthly returns filed during the relevant period. The said aspect has not been disputed in the Show Cause Notice by the department. 6. The learned counsel also argued on the ground of limitation. The appellants having replied to the Show Cause Notice and also having given the details of reversal of credit in their ER1 returns, they have not suppressed any facts. Further, the Show Cause Notice also does not allege that the appellant has suppressed any facts. The Show Cause Notice vaguely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n confirmed alleging that the appellant has not reversed the credit in respect of the SAD. When the appellants have given detail reply to the Show Cause Notice and also filed ER-1 returns reflecting the reversal of credit made by them, the confirmation of demand after a period of 10 years alleging that the appellants have not been able to establish the reversal by producing sufficient document is indeed not fair to the appellant. The observation made by the adjudicating authority for confirming the demand is that the appellants have not provided any evidence to show that they have reversed the SAD in respect of the imported materials cleared as such. It is also stated that the reversal shown in ER-1 was verified by Section Officer and found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Notice is as under:- The said amount of duty has been short-paid on account of non-reversal as per the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004. The fact of non-reversal of cenvat credit of Additional duty (4%) originally availed was not disclosed to the department and the same would not have come to notice of the department but for the verification done by Audit and the extended time limit under the proviso to section 11A(1) appears invocable for recovery of the said amounts. It therefore appears that the said differential duty is recoverable from the taxpayer under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 12. It has merely stated that the fact of non-payment would not come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
