2012 (2) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l product cleared to a sister unit, the appellant had debited an amount of Rs. 3,63,242/- in RG-23(C) Part-Il in 2006 towards duty on the said product. Later, however, the appellant took the amount back as credit in their account in March 2007 without any reference to the department. Having noticed this action of the assessee, the department issued a show-cause notice to them in March 2008 for recovery of the amount with interest thereon and for imposition of penalty. The demand was contested by the assessee. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 3,63,242/- against them with interest thereon under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and also imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 15 of the CENVAT C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efund without sanction by the proper officer. It is pointed out that, though an appeal filed by M/s BDH Industries Ltd. was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court, no stay was granted. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Vighnahar SSK Ltd. vs. CCE Pune [2012(275)ELT108(Tri-Mum)] wherein the Larger Bench decision has been followed in the context of upholding an order of recovery of an amount which was taken suo motu as credit in CENVAI account. 4. After careful consideration of the submissions, I am of the view that the issue is already covered against the appellant by the Larger Bench decision in the case of BDH Industries Ltd. The assessee had, by mistake, debited an amount in excess in their PLA and CENVAT accounts in the mo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he first issue, which was taken without reference to the refund claim. The Larger Bench decision was followed by a learned Single Member in the case of Vighnahar SSK Ltd. (supra), the facts of which are similar to the facts of the instant case. 6. I am also not impressed with the argument that the impugned order travels beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. The show-cause notice in this case clearly alleged that the assessee in the month of March 2007 availed CENVAT credit to the tune of Rs. 3,63,242/- without mentioning any invoice/bill of entry details or particulars for availment of such credit. This allegation clearly brought out the factum of the assessee having svo motu taken the credit. The absence of the expression suo motu in....