TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the adjudicating authority. The authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 11,55,492 (Rupees eleven lakhs fifty five thousand four hundred ninety two only) and cess amounting to Rs. 75,524/-alongwith penalty of Rs. 12,31,016/- (Rupees twelve lakhs thirty one thousand sixteen only) on M/s ABS Steel Ltd., Bhilai. Cenvat Credit of duty and cess after deduction of excess duty and cess was made admissible to M/s D.M. Engineering Ltd. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees Onel lakhs only) was also imposed as M/s D.M. Engineering for availing and passing wrong and irregular credit. 2. Initially the case was fixed for hearing on 24.10.2013 in appeal No. 657/2007 in respect of M/s D.M. Engineering Ltd. (Respondent No. 2), when the matter was under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 required that the Cenvat credit utilization should be equal to Cenvat credit taken on inputs if inputs are removed as such. The provisions contained in rule 3(4) & rule 3 (5) of the said Rules also paid down such stipulations. 5. Revenue has alleged that the M/s ABS Steels Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) had violated the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules by resorting to encash the Cenvat credit lying with them. Such wrongly availed and utilized credit was liable to be recovered from the M/s ABS Steels Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) alongwith penal action under rule 13. It is also alleged that the M/s D.M. Engineering Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) had willfully mis-stated the name and details of the M/s ABS Steels Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) as the manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llful mis-statement or suppression of facts and it was a simple case of debit of excess credit the first appellants (respondent in present appeal). 8. The impugned order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Raipur was not considered legal and proper by the revenue appeal has been before Honble Tribunal on the following grounds of appeal: (a) Rule 3 (3) (b) of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 provided that Cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of an amount equal to Cenvat credit taken on inputs, if such inputs are removed as such or after having been partially processed. (b) Reference has been made, to case of Eicher Tractors reported in 2004 (175) ELT 277 (T), Following was reiterated. X X what....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llful mis-statement or suppression of facts, etc with intend to evade duty. No findings has been given by the lower authority on this count. Even otherwise from the fact that have been brought forth, this is a simple case of excess credit debited by the first appellant. No material has been brought forth that there was willful mis-statement of facts or suppression of facts with intend to evade duty. When the excess credit has been debited and paid to the Government, there can hardly be a case of willful mis-statement, suppression etc. with intent to evade duty. In fact there is no evasion of duty as the excess amount has been paid to the Government itself. On the other hand, the second appellant has taken the credit of the same amount as wh....