2018 (11) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa 1. After hearing both the sides represented by Shri Rajeev Aggarwal Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri R.K Mishra Ld. DR for Revenue, we find that the appellant is 100 per cent subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. With effect from dated March, 2011, excise duty was levied on their final product i.e. Coal. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed before us. 2. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant bring to our notice that subsequently they obtained the centralised registration and a common return on behalf of all the units were being filed by them. As such he submits that there is no dispute after the period of registration. Prior to Registration, they had availed the credit and transferred the inputs to their sister units, who had....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red to reverse the credit in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. They have availed the excess credit on their unit, without utilising the inputs, which is a clear violation of the provisions of law. As such he supports the impugned order. 4. After appreciating the statements made by both sides we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of on account of limitation. The appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... units involves the doctrine of Revenue neutrality. As the Tribunal had set aside the demand in that case but imposed penalty on technical contraventions, Hon'ble High Court held that even penalties were not imposable. To the same effect is the decision of the Mumbai High Court in the case of Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Nagpur- 2018(11) G.S.T.L. 344 Bom) and Gujr....