9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the following demands: * Recovery of Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,20,58,441/- wrongly availed and utilized along with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; * Imposition of penalty of Rs.1,20,58,411/- on the appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for wrong availment and utilization of inadmissible Cenvat Credit; * Demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs.1,15,64,553/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking the proviso extended time limit along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; * Imposition of penalty of Rs.1,15,64,553/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad received certain capital goods for setting up of the pet bottle manufacturing plant on which Cenvat Credit was admissible to them. They had also been procuring inputs for the manufacture of pet bottles, which were also cenvatable. Thereafter, the appellant had worked out the amount of Cenvat Credit admissible to them and set-off the duty liability against the Cenvat Credit, which was also intimated in the said letter. From June 2010 they regularly started paying duty on the pet bottles and started filing ER-1 Returns after getting pet bottles added in the registration certificate already granted to them. Thereafter, on asking by the Department, the appellant vide their letter dated 17.08.2010 provided the copies of the purchase invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in payment of duty beyond 30 days from the due date and therefore they were not allowed to use Cenvat Credit for the purpose of payment of duty. The Show Cause Notice also sought to deny Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.1,20,58,441/- on the ground that the same had been availed without following the procedures and without obtaining central excise registration. Further the Department invoked the extended period of limitation alleging suppression by the appellant. 2.3 After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the entire demands as per the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice by invoking the extended period of limitation and by applying the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules. Hence the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i. Hyd.) which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Telangana High Court reported as CCE vs. DRD Body Tech's India Pvt Ltd - 2022 (379) ELT 106 (Telangana). 4.5 He further submits that it has been consistently held by various courts that the assessees are entitled to the benefit of Cenvat Credit if subsequent duty is held to be payable on the final product. For this submission, he relies on the following decisions: * Apex Steels P Ltd vs. CCE - 1995 (80) ELT 368 (Tribunal) * Raipur Grinding Industries Corp vs. CCE - 2000 (124) ELT 1036 (Tribunal) maintained in 2002 (144) ELT 9 (HC). * Phenix Mills vs. CCE - 1999 (113) ELT 1018 * Supreme Industries Ltd vs. CCE, Bombay-II - 2004 (170) ELT 432 (Tribunal) * Bharat Wagan & Engg. Co. Ltd vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma, Authorized Signatory is also legally not sustainable because penalty under Rule 26 can only be imposed when there is a mens rea on the part of the employee. Further, the ingredients for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 do not exist in the present case. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that the benefit of sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not given to the appellant because the appellant had suppressed the material fact with intent to evade payment of duty as they did not declare all the excisable goods including pet bottles manufactured by them in their factory. He further submits that the Adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment vide their letters dated 13.06.2010 and 23.06.2010. The appellant also paid some amount as demanded by the Department along with interest which is not disputed. 7. Further, we find that when the appellant paid the duty along with interest voluntarily and the same was not disputed by the Department, then as per the provisions of sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there was no necessity to issue the Show Cause Notice. 8. Further, we find that the Department has wrongly relied on the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, because Rule 8(3A) is applicable in cases where assessees are otherwise paying duty but for certain reasons commit default in not paying duty by due date. 9. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
