2014 (3) TMI 163

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....010 was issued to deny the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,58,874/- on the above items availed during the period from December 2007 to April 2009. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.1,58,874/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) by Order-in-Appeal dated 30.3.2011 set aside the adjudication order and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. By Final Order dated 4.11.2011, the Tribunal following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE -2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. -LB) and the decision of the Hon'bl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... wherein penalty was set aside for wrong availment of CENVAT credit. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR on behalf of Revenue submits that the appellant had not disclosed in the return that these items were used for supporting structure of the machinery and therefore it is a clear case of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty. He submits that during the internal audit, the officers detected the wrong availment of CENVAT credit. He relied upon the following decisions:- (a) Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (278) ELT 167 (AP) (b) Cosmos Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (284) ELT 721 (c) Ratnamani Metals & Tubes Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2012 (285) ELT 274 (d) Century Tiles Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2009 (236) EL....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ra), dealing with Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, the Tribunal observed that the extended period of limitation would apply as the assessee have never declared to the Department that they are availing CENVAT credit of the duty paid on HR coils which were exclusively used for the manufacturing of pipes by availing exemption notification. In the case of Century Tiles (supra), the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on penalty and interest as it is self-assessment procedure. 6. On perusal of the ER-1 returns, it is seen that the appellant had mentioned availment of the CENVAT credit on angles, channels, plates etc. with the suppliers name. It is noted that the appellant availed the credit during the period December 2....