2019 (1) TMI 56

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is identical, therefore all the three appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of all the three appeals are given herein below: Appeal Ref. Period involved Cenvat Credit demanded Penalty imposed SCN Date E/21756/2017 November 2013 to February 2015 Rs.8,56,988/- Rs.8,56,988/- under Rule 15(1) read with S. 11AC 08.12.2014 07.08.2015 E/21757/2017 2010-11 to 2012-13 Rs.16,26,589/- Rs.16,26,589/- under Rule 15(2) read with S. 11AC 26.02.2014 E/21758/2017 March 2015 to August 2015 Rs.4,63,422/- Rs.46,342/- under Rule 15(1) read with S.11AC 30.03.2016 Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mpose penalty under Rule 15 of CER, 2002. The show-cause notice dated 30.03.2016 was issued for the period from March 2015 to August 2015 demanding Rs. 4,63,422/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only) covering the period from March 2015 to August 2015 with proposal to impose penalty under Rule 15 of CER, 2002. The original authority after following the due process of law vide Order-in-Original confirmed the demand and interest along with penalties. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner who rejected the appeals. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2015 (40) STR 645 (Kar.) d. Mahle Engine Components India Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE, 2017 (51) STR 44 (Tri.-Del.) e. GKN Sinter Metals Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE, 2018-TIOL-662-CESTAT-MUM. f. CCE V. EMCO Ltd. 2015 (322) E.L.T. 394 (SC) g. Birla Corporation Ltd. V. CCE, 2018 (10) GSTL 43 (Tri.-Del.) h. Mahle Engine Components India Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE, 2017 (51) STR 44 (Tri.-Del.) 3.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., the Board has issued a Circular dated 08.06.2018 whereby they have clarified that for the purpose of availing cenvat credit on GTA, facts of each case is to be ascertained. The learned counsel further submitted that the said Circular clarif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....07, 2014 clearly show that evidences of the parties is to be ascertained as to when the property in the goods passes along with the other documents i.e. purchase order, invoices etc. Further I note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement cited supra has held in para 11 to 13 as under: "11. As can be seen from the reading of the aforesaid portion of the Circular, the issue was examined after keeping in mind judgments of CESTAT in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and M/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Those judgments, obviously, dealt with unamended Rule 2(l) of Rules, 2004. The three conditions which were mentioned explain the 'place of removal' as defined under Section 4 of the Act, there is no quarrel upto this stage. However,....