2019 (4) TMI 998

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssee's arguments as to the invocation of larger period of limitation and allowed the assessee's appeal. 2. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Ld. DR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC, appearing for the appellant-Revenue contended that the findings of the first appellate authority on the limitation was not proper for the reasons that the non-adoption of new Rule 10A of Central Excise Rules which amounted to mis-declaration and suppression and that the Show Cause Notice having been issued for non-compliance with the conditions under Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, Ld. DR also relied on the grounds of appeal. 3. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Kumar, Ld. Consultant appearing for the assessee-respondent relie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ancial year the duty paid is in excess of actual duty payable, thereby there cannot be any intention to evade payment of duty. • Further duty is on goods manufactured on job work basis, consignee is eligible to take credit. It is a revenue neutral transaction. • On 12.05.2009 the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise issued a SCN No. 8/2009 which demanded interest of Rs. 3,61,560/- and penalty as per Rule 25 of CER, 2002 r/w Section 11AC of the Act. • Another SCN was issued on 05.11.2009 vide SCN No. 42/2009 by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise demanding differential duty, interest and penalty. • The Jt. Commissioner had also issued a specific order on 29.12.2006 with regard to the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to March 2008 and the SCNs were issued on 12.05.2009 and 05.11.2009; on a perusal of the first SCN, following points emerge:- • M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (CPCL) would supply Polybutene Feed Stock (PBFS) through pipeline and the assessee would extract the final product namely "Poly Iso-Butylene (PIB); • The assessee-respondent would dispatch the PIB to M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) and its subsidiaries or to any other party at the behest of CPCL; • The assessee would raise invoices on CPCL for which CPCL would pay Rs. 17,000/- per MT towards the conversion of finished goods; • A certificate of the Cost Accountant dated 04.02.2008 was furnished giving the break-up of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ost Accountant giving break-up; • Revenue obtaining letter from M/s. IOCL regarding captive consumption of PIB; • CERA audit and internal audit in the assessee's factory premises on 21.01.2008 and 10.03.2008 where no issues were raised regarding valuation; • Payment of duty and interest even before issuance of SCNs; • No specific technical/legal/procedures non-compliance alleged in SCNs. 7. The facts are very clear, the department can never claim to be not in the know of above events the assessee had remitted the duty alongwith interest even before the Revenue could allege non-compliance with Rule 10 A. Firstly, when there is no dispute with regard to regular filing of returns, then the....