Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (7) TMI 929

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd upheld the Order-In-Original. 3. The facts as stated in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order are extracted to appreciate the facts of the case. 4. Acting on an intelligence that the appellants were using diesel oil in their furnaces but were procuring bills of CBFS and showing the same to have been used in furnaces while actually diesel oil was being used and CBFS was not being received and only bills were being received to avail Cenvat Credit. Manager in his statement dated 06.3.2006 stated that their firm was availing Cenvat facilities on input credit and input service credit and utilizing the same towards payment of service tax on output services; that their firm had availed Cenvat credit on furnace oil used in the furnaces. On be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Excise Act, 1944, interalia, admitted that they were not aware of sub-rule 3(c) of rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 wherein there was restriction on the availment of Cenvat Credit to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20% of the Service Tax. 6. It has been found during investigation that CBFS was supplied as a feed stock for the manufacture of Carbon Black which has its own and primary end use application and as such the product CBFS was not sold as Furnace Oil. 7. Appellants submitted that they have already deposited excess credit beyond limit of 20% amounting to Rs. 2,31,838.88/-. Further amount of Rs. 65,862.48/- toward credit availed as CBFS Vide TR-6 Challans dated 21.3.2006 and Rs. 2,98,440/- towards other inputs. They also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n CBFS and other inputs have been availed. Issue has been analyzed in detail, as given below: "M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (another manufacturer) has also opined that the CBFS is a chromatic rich extract stream; that the properties desired for the CBFS are density and BMCI (Bureau of mining Correlation Index); that the typical values of these properties are in the range of 0.99-1.01 (density) and 80-90 (BMCI) and that the Carbon black stock is supplied to the customers for manufacturing "Carbon Black" which is generally used in Rubber/Tyre Industries. Thus, I agree with the Adjudicating Authority that CBFS cannot be used as fuel in the furnaces as this product contains very high percentage of Carbon Black and if the same is use....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....envat credit on the CBFS during the material period. Moreover, the appellants have already voluntarily deposited the amount of wrongly availed/utilized Cenvat credit on CBFS by admitting that they had never used said CBFS as fuel in their furnaces; that they had used only the furnace oil and that they had accepted the invoices of CBFS issued by the dealers as the said dealers had convinced them that it was the other name of furnace oil, as admitted by Shri S.K. Bhardwaj, Manager of the appellants in his voluntary statement dated 6.3.2006. I further find that during the period when the present show cause notice was issued to the appellants in 2007, numbers of other manufacturers working under the jurisdiction of Central Excise Commissionera....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the issue of time bar, by pleading that there was no deliberate default on their part; that the entire transactions on record and that there was no suppression, mis-statement or contravention of Rules with intent to evade payment of duty. So far as this contention of the appellants is concerned. I find that it has been established on record that the appellants had obtained fake invoices or CBFS without receiving and utilizing the said CBFS under the guise of furnace oil and similarly, the appellants had never disclosed to the Department that they had availed and utilized the Cenvat credit in excess in contravention of provisions of Rule 6(3) (C) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, there was definitely fraud and suppression of fa....