2017 (3) TMI 303 - AT - Central Excise

Dismissal of Appeal Upholding Duty Demand & Penalty for CENVAT Credit & Central Excise Act Violation

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the duty demand and penalty imposed for contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules and Central Excise Act provisions. The ... Time limitation - is SCN issued to assessee by Department time-barred? - Held that: - the relevant date in this case is 20.07.2005 and not the date mentioned in the return i.e., 18.07.2005 or the date of taking credit or the date of internal audit, as claimed by the appellant and therefore the appellant's plea that the SCN is hit by the limitation of period of one year is not acceptable - the SCN was issued well within the period of limitation and as such, the demand is not time barred - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Time bar for issuance of show-cause notice.2. Contravention of provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944.3. Liability for duty short paid and penalty.Analysis:Issue 1: Time bar for issuance of show-cause noticeThe appellant contended that the show-cause notice was time-barred as it was served after one year from the relevant date. However, the Commissioner (A) held that the notice was issued within the limitation period. The impugned order was upheld based on this finding, dismissing the appellant's appeal.Issue 2: Contravention of rulesThe appellant had taken suo moto credit of Rs. 58,333 in their PLA, claiming it was due to an excess payment of duty in a previous period. The authorities found this action to be in contravention of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (A) concluded that the appellant was liable to pay the duty short paid and imposed a penalty accordingly.Issue 3: Liability for duty short paid and penaltyThe Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand for Rs. 58,333 along with interest and imposed an equivalent penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Despite the appellant's arguments, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (A) upheld the demand and penalty, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In summary, the appeal was filed against an order dismissing the appellant's appeal and upholding the duty demand and penalty imposed due to contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules and Central Excise Act provisions. The contention of the show-cause notice being time-barred was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld based on the findings regarding the contravention of rules and liabilities. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and timely actions in such matters.