TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 12330 of 2019 - A/10732/2022 - Dated:- 24-6-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Vivek Bapat, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Vinod Lukose, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that based on year 2000 audit objection the SCN dated 13.07.2010 came to be issued to the appellant for wrong availment of cenvat credit on various input services for the period November 2007- June 2009 which was followed by subsequent SCN dated 06.06.2011 for the period July 2009 to July 2010 amounting to Rs 11,37,444/-. In the first round of litigation the demand of cenvat credit was dropped except for the confirmation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 11 AC(1) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 as it stood after 14.05.2015 is not legal and correct as the period involved in the present case is admittedly July 2009 - July 2010. He further submits that penalty cannot be imposed either under Rule 15 of CCR , 2004 or under section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that during the relevant time penalty could not have been imposed under Rule 15 (1) and Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004 as in these rules there was no provision for penalty in respect of wrong availment of cenvat credit on input services. The words Input service were inserted in the said sub rule 15 (1) and 15(2) w.e.f 27.02.2010 vide notification No. 06/2010 CE (NT) therefore, penalty under rule 15 of the CCR, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der to confirm the penalty. He also placed reliance on the following judgments:- 2011 (267) ELT 384(CESTAT- Bang) Davangere Sugar Company 2013 (31) STR 214 (CESTAT- Mum)- Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd 2015 (320) ELT 794 (GUJ-HC)- Jitendra Synthetics 2016 (45) STR 523 (CESTAT KOL)- Crescent Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)- Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills. 3. Shri Vinod Lukose, Learned Superintendent (AR) reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. In the present case the dispute is only imposition of penalty on wrong availment of cenvat credit during the period July 2009 - July2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
