2017 (3) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in manufacture of passenger cars. For the manufacture of passenger cars the parts were sent to various vendors for making motor parts and components. On the said components appellants also paid 4% of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). On received of goods in the manufacturing premises they availed Cenvat credit of the said duty i.e. 4% of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). During the period from 01/03/2006 to 31/10/2006 they cleared various components on which Cenvat credit of said SAD was availed to Vendors/Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) who utilized such components and made sub-assemblies which were further used in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it Rules, 2004. The appellant contended before the Original Authority that on being pointed out by the department. they immediately paid the entire amount of credit was involved i.e. Rs. 2,93,33,114/-and that the entire exercise was revenue neutral because the Vendors/Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) were eligible to take Cenvat credit of the same and after the Vendors/Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) supply the subassemblies to the appellant, the appellants were eligible to take Cenvat credit of the same. They further contended that they had no intention to evade payment of said credit by way of debit. They contended that the proposal to impose penalty cannot survive because they had deposited the duty/Cenvat credit demanded ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1944 for the reason that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade duty or to debit less amount since the whole exercise was revenue neutral. Therefore, explanation 1 to Sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the said Act is not applicable in their case. He has, further, contended that in similar circumstances this Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported at 2010 (255) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. Mumbai) has held that provisions related to penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 apply to a case where an assessee takes credit in respect of inputs or capital goods wrongly and such inputs or capital goods become liable to confiscation and the person who take such ....