TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appeals involve identical issue therefore both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein below. SI No. Appeal No. Period of dispute Amount Involved Total Disputed Amount before CESTAT OIA Duty Penalty 1. E/20522/2019 April 2011 to January 2015 5,41,656/- 1,10,000/- 6,51,656/- No.57/2019 dated March 05,2019 2. E/20523/2019 April 2012 to January 2015 6,91,688/- 6,91,688/- 13,83,376/- No.58/2019 dated March 05,2019 Total 12,33,344/- 801688/- 20,35,032/- For the sake of convenience, the facts relating to Appeal No.E/20522/2019 are taken. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of electr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....688/- for the period April 2012 to January 2015 being the differential CENVAT credit short paid/reversed, alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. After due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide impugned OIO dated 31.01.2017 (issued on 20.02.2017) confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,91,688/- for the period April 2012 to January 2015 along with interest holding that the appellant had short paid/reversed CENVAT Credit under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Rule 6(3A)(b)(iii) of CCR, 2004 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Penalty of Rs. 6,91,688/- imposed under Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AC(1)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit availed on all the services are to be considered for applying the formula given under Rule 6(3A). He further submitted that identical issue has been considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot Vs Reliance Industries Ltd. 2019-VIL-163-CESTAT-AHM-CE wherein it has been categorically held that total CENVAT credit for the purpose of formula given under Rule 6(3A) is only total CENVAT credit of common input services. He further submitted that if total CENVAT credit is considered for reversal of credit attributable to trading of goods then it would lead to reversal of credit on various input services which have never been used towards trading of goods. He further referred to amendment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the normal period of limitation is applied then the demand will be reduced to Rs. 1,55,755/- in case of Unit-I and Rs. 34,307/- in case of Unit-II. 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant failed to give intimation to the Department regarding the option exercised by him for reversing the proportionate CENVAT Credit and has suppressed the material fact from the Department and extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only issue involved in the present case is short reversal of CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 6(3)(iii) of CCR, 2004. This issue has been considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dutiable goods. If the interpretation of the Revenue is accepted, then the Cenvat credit of part of input service even though used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, shall stand disallowed, which is not provided under any of the Rule of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 10. From the above it can be seen that when anomaly was noticed, the Government has substituted the sub-rule (3A). The legislators very consciously substituted the Rule with intention to give a clarificatory nature to the provision of sub-rule (3A) so as to make it applicable retrospectively. It was all along not the intention of the Government to deny Cenvat credit on the input/input service even though used in the dutiable goods. Keeping the said view in mind, the substitut....