TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue bearing TAXC No.130 of 2016 has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the action of the assessee in taking re-credit of CENVAT amount after the Revenue had already rejected his claim can be termed as a fraudulent or other illegal activity done with an intention of defrauding the Government Officials ?" 2. The other appeal preferred by the assessee, arising out of the same impugned order, bearing TAXC No.137 of 2016, has not been admitted for hearing. 3. Both the matters i.e TAXC Nos.130 & 137 of 2016 were placed for analogous hearing in view of the order passed in TAXC No.137 of 2016 on 19-4-2017, therefore, this appeal (TAXC No.137 of 2016) is heard on admission. 4.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ired to be reversed as per the provisions of Rule 6 or Rule 6 (3A)(c)(iii) of the Rules, 2004. It is also held that the noticee cannot take re-credit which is already under demand in another show cause notice pending adjudication. The Commissioner further held that the assessee is also liable for interest under Rule 14 of the Rules, 2004 and penalty under Rule 15 (2) of the Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act, 1944'). 7. Imposition of penalty was on the ground that initially the assessee wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit involved on the goods without being eligible to do so and reversed the credit entry when this was objected to by the Department and when show cause notice was issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t credit to the tune of Rs. 1,56,784/- was availed on Concrete Sleepers, as the same are used by them inside the factory for movement of excisable products meant for removal. However, regarding availment of Cenvat credit of Rs. 49,62,640/- the assessee did not inform anything as to on which goods the said credit has been availed. Their description, tariff sub heading and their specific use in the manufacture of final product of the noticee were also not shown. In respect of the said input credit availed by the assessee, it was specifically asked to submit a detailed clarification about the said restoration of Cenvat credit, however, the noticee failed to submit any clarification about availment of Cenvat credit of Rs. 49,62,640/-. The notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty imposed on the assessee. Disallowing of penalty in the present proceeding would not come in the way of the Revenue to consider fastening of liability arising out of disallowing Cenvat credit, interest and penalty pursuant to the first show cause notice. Both the parties shall free to agitate the issues both factual and legal, which may be available to them in the facts and circumstances of the case, during adjudication of the first show cause notice. 16. The appeal preferred by the Revenue is against the said part of the Tribunal's order whereby penalty imposed on the assessee has been set aside. 17. The question of law framed by this Court is to the effect as to whether the action of the assessee in taking re-credit of CENVA....