TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure and export of manmade fabrics, readymade garments and made ups falling under Chapters 54, 61 and 62 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They shifted their factory from Laxmi Industrial State, Penkar Pada, Mira Road (East) Gala No.7 Sarita Building, Prabhat Industrial Estate, Dahisar (East), Mumbai. The appellant while shifting the factory was having a Cenvat Credit balance of Rs. 5,62,355/- in their Cenvat Account, the appellant filed an application to the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise Borivali Division vide their letter dt. 6.9.2004 for transfer of Cenvat Credit in balance to their subsequent factory premises. The application was rejected on the ground that transfer of Cenvat Credit is allowed only if, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o under Rule 27 of the Rule. On adjudication, the demand of Rs. 5,62,107/- was confirmed for a recovery under Rule 14, and the same was appropriated as the appellant have paid the said amount on 21.09.2005 and 19.1.2006, demand of interest was also confirmed, the same was appropriated against the amount of interest already paid by the appellant on 3.12.2006, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed under Rule 27 and also a penalty of Rs. 5,62,107/- was imposed under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected, therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Vinay Sejpal, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that atthe time of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld that for invoking the penal provision under Section 11AC of the Act, the show cause notice should specifically mention the charges under which the penalty under Section 11AC can be imposed. In the absence of invocation of any charge and ingredients for invocation of such provision, penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed. In support he placed reliance on the following judgments. (i) Collector of Central Excise Vs. H.M.M. Ltd.-1995 (76) E.L.T.497 (S.C.) (ii) Raj Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India -1996 (88) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) (iii) Kaur & Singh Vs. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi-1997 (94) E.L.T. 289 (S.C.) 4. On the other hand, Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le fabric, and the appellant has also paid additional equal amount in cash after issuance of show cause notice which they have not contested. As regard the issue whether there is suppression of fact, mis-declaration, fraud, collusion etc. I find that the department has made out a case on the basis of the facts declared in their Cenvat account as well as in the ER-1 return regarding the removal of non excisable goods on the payment of duty from the balance of Cenvat credit. On careful reading of the show cause notice, I find that there is no specific allegation that the appellant has suppressed the fact of removal of non-excisable goods on payment of duty. The appellant shows the debit entry in their RG 23A Part-II account and also shown the....