2019 (5) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s is identical therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Details of both the appeals are given here in below: SI. No. Appeal No. Period of Dispute Amount Involved (in Rs.) Penalty imposed (in Rs.) 1. E/21193/2018 09/2013 24,44,987/- 24,44,987/- 2. E/21356/2018 01/2014 4,85,519/- 4,85,519/- For the sake of convenience, I take the facts of Appeal No. E/21193/2018. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. An investigation was conducted against the appellant by CCE Guntur, Andhra Pradesh during 2012-13 in view of the alert circular 0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the detection of the offence of misclassification of imported coal and wrong availment of benefit of 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 by the DRI, New Delhi, in terms of Rule 14 of CCR, 2004, along with applicable interest and penalty. After following the due process, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original dated 15.12.2016 disallowed and ordered for recovery of ineligible CENVAT credit of Rs. 24,44,987/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 along with applicable interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 24,44,987/- under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide the impugned order, has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 3. Heard both the parties a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oms formalities. The appellants have claimed the benefit of exemption as per S.No.123 of Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 and paid 1% duty as prescribed and cleared the coal after necessary inspection and testing by the customs authorities as stipulated under the said Notification. He further submitted that SCN was issued only after the alert by the DRI that the appellants have imported the Bituminous coal in the guise of Steam coal in order to avail the benefit of countervailing duty under Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. He further submitted that they are disputing the classification but in the meantime, they have paid the differential duty and rightly claimed the CENVAT credit which is permissible under law. In s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the same cannot be taken as suppression of facts to evade payment of duty. For this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, C.Ex. & S.T., Guntur [2014 (310) ELT 97] wherein the Tribunal has held that "when issue was one of classification of imported goods and technical in nature, then "mens-rea" to evade payment of duty could not be alleged and hence extended period could not be invoked and so, no penalty leviable under Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962. 5. On the other hand, Learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellants have imported the coal as 's....