2017 (11) TMI 765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Boric Acid, Borax, Sodium Nitrate etc. falling under Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Alleging that they have wrongly availed CENVAT credit of 4% Additional Customs Duty (SAD) in respect of the goods which were traded during the period 2006-07 to 2009-10 (up to December 2009), a demand notice was issued to them on 02.02.2011 for recovery of inadmissible credit of Rs. 26,31,022/- with interest and penalty; also personal penalty proposed on the Director. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty and also personal penalty of Rs. 26,31.022/- was imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Shr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d.); Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Pondicherry - 2008 (227) ELT 65 (Tri-Chennai). Further, he has submitted that during the period there were audits of their records and hence invoking longer period of limitation is untenable in law. In support, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of C.C.E., Bangalore Vs. Pragathi Concrete Products (P) Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 819 (SC); Commissioner Vs. Dynamic Industries Ltd. - 2014 (35) STR 674 (Guj.). 4. Per contra, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that even though during the relevant period the Appellant has traded with the imported raw materials, namely, Borax Pentahydrate, however manipulating their CENVAT credit record, they have shown that the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....period in question had been undertaken by the Department itself would absolve them, from the allegation of suppression of fact cannot be accepted since the Appellant had manipulated the records showing receipt and use of the imported raw material in their RG-23A Part I and Part II register. This could be detected only after considering other circumstances/evidence collected by the Department and confirmed after recording the statement of the concerned person. In support of his argument, Ld. A.R for the revenue has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Tigrania Metal & Steel Industries P.Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. - 2015 (326) ELT 650 (Bom.). 5. In his rejoinder, the ld. Senior Advocate has submitted that the Appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication No.102/2007, therefore, the credit involved thereafter be considered as a revenue neutral situation. I do not find merit in the contention of the Appellant that inasmuch as even though they have sold the goods on its import from the place import itself, by raising commercial invoice, but they have intentionally and knowingly manipulated the records making false entry in the RG 23A part I and Part II showing its receipt and also prepared issue slips, allotting chit numbers so as to indicate that the same had been used in the factory. In my opinion, such manipulations of the record, cannot in any circumstances be considered as an intention not to avail the CENVAT credit, which is inadmissible to them, but an innocent belief of the Bud....