TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Organic Chemicals and Agrochemicals, classifiable under Chapter 29 & 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of audit for the period June 2004 to March 2007, the scrutiny of the CENVAT documents i.e. RG 23A Part II Register and CENVAT invoices, it was noticed that the Appellant No.1 had taken excess CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,04,09,699.00 and Rs. 9,59,538.00..It was also noticed that they had availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of the xerox copies of invoices and bills of Entry. The Appellant reversed the credit of Rs. 1,14,01,814.00 on 30.04.2007 and 14.05.2007. 3. A Show Cause Notice dt.09.05.2008 was issued, proposing to confirm the demand of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,27,73,273.00 and to appropriate the amount of Rs. 1,14,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Court and Tribunal, as under:- a) CCE Madurai Vs M/s Strategic Engineering (P) Ltd. 2014 (310) E.L.T. 509 (Mad.) b) CCE Vadodara-Il Vs M/s Dynaflex Pvt.Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 277 (Guj.) c) CCE Mumbai-I Vs M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd 2007 (215) ELT 3 (SC) d) CCE Vs M/s Sweet Industries 2011 (264) ELT 349 (Guj.) 5. Regarding the reversal of credit of the balance amount of Rs. 13,71,459.00, he submits that they have already got the three original copies of Bills of Entry/Invoice out of four. He submits that there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax, as the credit was recorded in the CENVAT register. Smt. Beena Thomas, Accounts Officer in her statement before the officers admitted that she has taken excess cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise, Thane-1 E/1731 & 1732/10. He submits that they have not contested the demand for extended period of limitation and therefore, the penalty under Section 11AC would be invoked. He further submits that the other Appellants are directly involved for availing excess credit: and the penalties are warranted. 7. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that it is appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the remand order of the Tribunal as under:- "6. After hearing the learned SDR, we find that the appellants are not disputing confirmation of excess credit availed them. The challenge in the present appeal is only to interest and penalty. Law on the issue of interest stand declared by Tribunal in number of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the remand order. We agree with the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative that they have not filed the original documents even before the Tribunal. During the course of hearing, after about 10 years, the learned Advocate just made submission before the Tribunal that they have got the original documents. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate. So, the demand of Rs. 13,71,459.00 is justified. 9. Regarding the demand of interest, learned Advocate submits that they have utilized the credit partly and paid the interest thereon. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the minimum balance in the CENVAT Credit to Rs. 5,09,640.00. It is also noticed the decision relied upon by the learned Advocat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roper way. She also stated in answer of other question that error was committed due to heavy workload and Shri Prakash Gulabbhai Desai never cross verified the CENVAT entries. Shri Prakash Gulabbhai Desai in his statement dt.11.09.2007, stated that Smt Beena Thomas who was his assistant in Central Excise work and Authorised Signatory also for the said purpose and had made the entries in the CENVAT account. It is also stated that she was directly under Shri R.K. Shetty and she used to report day to day activity including Central Excise. The excess availment of CENVAT Credit do not appear to be taken deliberately after going through the statements and records. It is a dear statement that Shri R.K. Shetty had not directed her to avail any exce....