2014 (12) TMI 118

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rs. 73,33,865/- was made in the accounts by reducing the value. The respondent was asked to report the status of the said goods vide letter dated 30.11.2007. The respondent, after discussion with the range Superintendent, reversed an amount of Rs. 23,44,281/- (as central excise duty) and Rs. 46,885/- (as education cess). The said amount was reversed on the written off raw material and WIP during the period 2006-07. Since the respondent could not submit the one-to-one correlation as demanded on 30.11.2006, a demand notice was issued demanding duty of Rs. 19,94,322/- invoking the extended period of limitation. The case was adjudicated wherein the said demand along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC was confirmed. The respondent fil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such, the assessee have not fulfilled the conditions as laid down in Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as amended vide Notification No. 26/2007-CE(NT) dated 11.5.2007. Therefore, the extended period is invokable in this case under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.". 4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, stated that none of the items have been taken away or clandestinely removed by the respondent. It is only for the accounting purposes that they have reduced the value of the goods and this is in accordance with the requirement of accounting practices as also the income-tax law. The learned counsel also stated that many a times the goods on which reduced value is taken are put to use in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....   (ii) CCE vs. Ingersoll Rand (India) Ltd. reported in 2014 (300) ELT 347 (Guj.);     (iii) Philips Electronics India Ltd. vs, CCE, Pune reported in 2011 (274) ELT 311 (Tri-Mum);     (iv) Sakata Inx (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2009 (240) ELT 225 (Tri-Del);     (v) CCE, Jamshedpur vs. Tata Motors Ltd. reported in 2008 (221) ELT 545 (Tri-Kolkata);     (vi) Hindustan Zinc Ltd, vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam reported in 2005 (191) ELT 724 (Tri-Bang);     (vii) ADC India Communications Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2012 (83) ELT 415 (Tri-Bang) 5. As far as limitation is concerned, the learned counsel stated that there was no misstat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g to reversal of Cenvat Credit on inputs in respect of which provisions for write off was made for the financial year 2003-2004. The Department sought to demand duty of Rs. 19,94,322/- in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 based on the scrutiny of the Trial Balance for the year 2003-04. The extracts of Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules which is relevant is reproduced below:         Rule 3(5B)         If the value of any,         (i) input, or         (ii) capital goods before being put to use, on which CENVAT has been taken is written off fully or where....