2018 (4) TMI 955

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed availing exemption from payment of duties. The appellant was also availing the facility of CENVAT credit on the inputs, input services and capital goods under CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. During the course of search conducted by DGCEI on 26.09.2015, the department recovered incriminating documents, investigated an offence case and issued show cause notice dated 04.10.2016. The impugned order came to be issued after the adjudication proceedings. Demands have been raised on various grounds against which the present appeal has been filed. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri Rohit Chaudhary and Ms. Preeti Khiwani, learned Advocates, as well as S.K. Bansal, learned DR for Revenue. 3. The various issues dealt with in the impugned order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....% as per Rule 6(3). Explanation (I) in Rule 6(3) is categorical in its provision that once a manufacturer exercises the option under Sub-rule 3, such option shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year. Appellant has changed the option already exercised with effect from 01.07.2014. In view of Explanation (I) forbidding such change in the middle of the Financial Year, we are of the view that such change can be given effect to only with effect from 01.04.2015 and the appellant is required to pay an amount at the rate of 6% as per Rule 6(3) till the end of the financial year 2014-15. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority, and hence the same is upheld. 2. "Suo Moto c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of credit stands with reversed, hence we find no justification for imposition of the penalty which is set aside. 4. "Demand of differential duty by including amount of incentive received on account of capital subsidy." The appellant received subsidy amounts under the Madhya Pradesh Udyogik Samvardhan Sahayata Yogna, equal to 50% of the VAT/CST paid. The department was of the view that such amounts are required to be included in the assessable value of goods by the appellant in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Super Synotech Ltd., 2014 (301) ELT 273 (SC). It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the VAT/CST collected from the buyers is deposited in full with the State Government a....