TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (4) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llets Ltd., Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as HGPL) during the period from July 2000 to January 2001. M/s. HGPL supplied higher grade iron ore pellets in railway rakes. According to the appellants, they received excess receipt of 3473.20 MT of iron ore pellets. However, according to the Supdt. of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, M/s. HGPL had sent 4953.50 MT, short of invoice quantity. He compelled M/s. HGPL, Visakhapatnam to pay differential duty on the total quantity of 8426.65 MT of iron ore pellets (3473.20 + 4953.50 = 8426.65). The duty paid was taken as credit by the appellants. But the Revenue disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 13,15,644/- on the ground that 4953.50 MT of iron ore pellets was short received. The credit of Rs. 23,6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,35,646.25 MT of pellets including additional amount of duty on 8426.65 MT under separate invoices as directed by the Department even though the actual quantity dispatched by the input supplier was 2,30,692.80 MT of iron ore pellets. (iv) The value of 2,30,692.80 MT of iron ore pellets received by JVSL, correspond to the value of 2,35,646.25 MT of iron ore pellets on which duty has been paid. (v) The Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Universal Cables Ltd. [1997 (94) E.L.T. 185 (T)] has held that the quantum of duty availed as credit is equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer and the same is not to be disturbed unless the refund is sanctioned to the manufacturer of the input....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e show cause notice was issued on 7-11-2002. The Department cannot invoke larger period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) disallowing the credit availed during the period July 2000 to February 2001. The demand is barred by limitation. (xi) The penalty of Rs. 23,68,752/- on the appellants is not justified in the circumstances of the case. 5.Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR reitereated the contentions in the Order-in-Original. 6.We have heard the rival contentions. According to the appellants, there was excess receipt of iron ore pellets. According to the Supdt. of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, the billed quantity was more than the dispatched quantity. In other words, there was shortage. He directed M/s.....