2017 (12) TMI 149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y on which neither any excise duty nor any service tax was being paid. The show cause notice was issued whereby it was alleged that as per the Rule 6(i) the assessee is not entitle for the Cenvat credit in respect of input or input service used in manufacture of exempted goods or exempted service. Cenvat credit on input service attributable to trading activity is not admissible. The show cause notice was adjudicated whereby demand of Cenvat credit attributable to trading activity has been confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed under Section 11AC. The adjudicating authority also confirmed the interest only for part period i.e. from April, 2010 to March, 2012 and interest for the period from 1st april 12 was not demanded. 2. Ms. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.) (f) CCE Vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 3 (SC) (f) CCE Vs. Sangrur Agro Ltd. 2006 (202) ELT 835 (Tri. Del.) (g) CCE Vs. Sangrur Agro Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 25 (P Eastern (i) Medikit Ltd. Vs. CCEbb2009 (242) 2009 242) ELT 51 (Tri. Del.) (j) Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Ltd. Vs. CCE 2017-TIOL-2038-CESTAT-ChD (k) Mysore Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE 1985 (21) ELT 875 (T) Affirmed by Supreme Court in the case reported at 1987 (28) ELT 50 (SC) (l) M/s. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, CI ST 2017-TIOL-1316-CESTAT-ALL 9 (m) Franke Faber India Vs. CCE 9017 (52) STR 155 (T) 3. On the other hand, Shri. N. N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....if the Cenvat credit was not utilized but only taken wrongly interest is chargeable as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, interest for the period from April, 10 to March, 12 was rightly demanded, therefore same is upheld. As regard the penalty under Section 11AC, I find that appellant was very much knowing that they are manufacturing and clearing dutiable goods as well as doing trading activity which is neither chargeable to duty nor to service tax and despite this fact they availed credit on common input service. It is only on pointed out by the audit party they have reversed the amount there is clear suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. Rule 6(1) is unambiguous, the genesis of Rule 6(1) is Rule 57 CC of erstwhile Ce....