2017 (6) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Parashiva Murthy, A.R. - For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.08.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order-in-original. 2.  Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are clearing excisable goods for home consumption on pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 15.2.2010 confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,25,394/- and interest of Rs. 85,381/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount i.e. 4,25,394/-. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order-in-original. 3.  Heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mount demandable in terms of Rule 6(3) is neither duty nor CENVAT credit. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision in the case of 2002 (149)ELT 490 upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003(153)ELT A 89 wherein it is held that the amount payable in such cases are neither duty nor Modvat credit. The recovery related to that is dealt separately by the explanation to Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ivision Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sangrur Agro Ltd cited (supra) has held that the provisions of Section 11AC of the CE Act are applicable only in respect of short- payment of duty whereas the payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not duty but an amount. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana as reported in 2010 (254)ELT....