TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....405/06, GIDC, Ankleshwar along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and a penalty equivalent to the duty demand has also been imposed. Appellant's Unit No. 3 situated at Plot No. 3101/02, GIDC, Ankleshwar has also been denied Cenvat credit of Rs. 84,97,101/- on the supplementary invoice issued by Unit 2. Interest under Section 11AB and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC has also been invoked against Unit No. 3. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant's Unit 2 is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, inter alia, falling under Chapter 38 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The goods manufactured and cleared on payment of duty by Unit 2 are taken to the appellant's other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Kores (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 901 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Super Forging & Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 153 (Tri.-Kol.) (iii) Commissioner v. Super Forging & Steel Ltd. reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T. A151 (S.C.) (iv) Lanco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupati reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 275 (Tri. - Bang.) (v) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-II v. Indeos AB Limited reported in 2010 (254) E.L.T. 628 (Guj.) (vi) Commissioner v. Indeos ABS Limited reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T. A155 (vii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. v. CCE, Mysore reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. 62 (Kar.) (v) Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex. Hyderabad-IV v. Jairaj Ispat Ltd. reported in 2009 (245) E.L.T. 118 (A.P.) (vi) Godrej Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 108 (Tri. -Mumbai)." 4. Shri Raju (Commr.) and Shri P.N. Sarvaiya (AR) appearing on behalf of Revenue argued that Cenvat credit under supplementary invoices is not admissible when extended period is attracted as per the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and accordingly defended the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. Mainly there are followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises, from where the goods are sold by, or on behalf of the said manufacturer or importer, in case additional amount of excise duties or additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, has been paid, except where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act or of the Customs Act, 1962 or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty."          &ems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Karnataka. Although the irregularity committed in Mysore resulted in revenue loss to the Mysore Commissionerate, looking into the totality of the circumstances, there was no revenue loss to the exchequer at all. This fact has been recorded by both the Adjudicating authorities. Whatever duty is paid at Mysore on Sandalwood oil, the same is taken as Cenvat credit at Bangalore. The duty on the finished products namely, toilet soaps is discharged under Section 4A on the basis of MRP. Since the value of soap takes into account the escalated cost of the sandalwood oil there cannot be any short payment of duty on the toilet soaps at Bangalore. In effect, the Government did not suffer any loss. In view of the above reasons there is absolutel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have taken credit of the same. It is not the case where the goods are being sold by one assessee to another. It is basically taking out money from one pocket and putting the same in other pocket of same trouser. The other unit at Nadiar was appellant's own unit and it was only for the procedural and technical purposes that the duty was required to be paid at the time of clearance from the assessee's unit. Tribunal, in number of cases, has held that where the duty paid by one unit is available as credit to other unit of the same assessee, the entire issue is revenue neutral and the demand should not be confirmed on the said count. Reference in this regard is made to Tribunal decision in case of M/s. P.T.C. Industries v. CCE, Jaipur - 2003 (....