2018 (4) TMI 473

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Interest of Rs. 1,30,618/- and appropriated the said amount against paid by the appellant and also imposed equal penalty in terms of Section 1 IAC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 13 and 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. medicaments falling under chapter sub-heading 3003 1000 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985. During the scrutiny of the records by the internal audit of the Department, it was revealed that appellant had availed CENVAT credit in respect of inputs such as furnace oil, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Benzyle Alcohol and input services like security services, courier services, tours & travels, Manpower Recr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT vide the Final Order No.25351/2013 dt. 07/05/2013 held that the submissions of the appellant as regards applicability of Rule 6 (7) of CENVAT Credit Rules required fresh consideration in view of the certificate of Cost Accountant as produced by the appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise passed de novo order dt. 09/04/2014 and confirmed the same demand. Thereafter the appellant filed appeal before the CESTAT and CESTAT vide Final Order No.21524/2014 dt. 25/08/2014 again remanded the matter for de novo adjudication after observing that what was required to be verified was the proof of payment of the amounts required to be made under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit. 5. He further submitted that the issue pertains to non-following of procedure under Rule 6 of CCR in respect of credit availed on common inputs and input services and the lapse cannot be equated to fraud,   suppression of facts, under Section 11AC beginning has raised willfull mis-statement etc. so as to attract penalty He also submitted that the Department itself in the beginning has raised the demand of Rs. 1.68 crores which has ultimately   come down to Rs. 10.35 lakhs. Therefore it can safely be said that the appellant is not guilty of any suppression of facts. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Subhash Khandelwal & Sons vs. Commissioner [2011(24) STR 461....