TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in-Original whereas in Appeal No. E/20223/2019, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund of pre-deposit made by the appellant. Since in both the cases, the facts are interlinked, therefore both the cases are taken together for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Sl. No. Appeal No. Order-in-Appeal No. & Date Period of Dispute Amounts involved Duty (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1 E/20377/2019 BEL-EXCUS-000-APP-MSC-134-2017-18 dated 28/01/2018 October 2012 to March 2014 2,99,134/- (credit) 2,99,134/- 2 E/20223/2019 BEL-EXCUS-000-APP-MSC-306-2018-19 dated 26/11/2018 October 2012 to March 2014 22,435/- (Refund) --- For the sake of convenience, the facts of main Appeal E/20377/2019 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod July 2012 to March 2014 under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act was issued to the appellant. Show-cause notice also proposed to demand interest and imposed penalties apart from proposing to order for an appropriation of an amount of Rs. 2,99,134/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Four only) and reversed by the appellant towards cenvat credit proposal and an amount of Rs. 8,704/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Four only) paid by them towards interest liability. After following the due process, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 11/04/2016 dropped the part of the proposal contained in the show-cause notice and consequently disallowed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submitted that mere delay in payment of service tax does not attract the provisions of Rule 9 (1)(bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as long as credit is availed on the basis of services provided. He further submitted that delayed payment of service tax voluntarily does not amount to suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of tax and hence credit should not be denied by invoking the provisions of Rule 9(1)(bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. CCE, Salem Vs. JSW Steels Ltd. - 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 153 (Mad.) b. C.C, C.E & ST, Hyderabad-IV Vs. Virtusa India Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 359 (Tri.-Hyd.) c. Bosch Chassis India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Gurgoan - 2017 (358) E.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the present case. He further submitted that the denial of credit by invoking longer period of limitation is not sustainable as the facts were within the knowledge of the Department at the time of availment of credit and the Department failed to initiate any action within the normal period of limitation for recovery. Further in Appeal E/20223/2019 wherein refund of Rs. 22,435/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Five only) was rejected by both the authorities, the learned counsel submitted that adjudication order has been passed without issuance of show-cause notice to the appellant and hence suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice . For this he relied upon the following decisions: a. Darampal Saty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her submitted that the irregular availment of cenvat credit was noticed during the audit and hence the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with 11AC (1) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 is justified. He also submitted that the refund of pre-deposit of Rs. 22,435/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Five only) has rightly been rejected because the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the main appeal vide its Order dated 28/01/2018. He also submitted that the benefit of reduced rate of penalty can only be availed if the appellant has complied with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and deposited the reduced penalty under Section 11AC(1)(c) if the same was paid within 30 days but the appellant has not paid th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e denial of credit by invoking Rule 9(1)(bb) is not tenable in law. Further, I find that the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra have held that the amount voluntarily paid does not amount to suppression. Further, I find that the entire exercise of payment of service tax and availment of credit has resulted into revenue neutral situation and for this the decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra are squarely applicable in the present case. Further, I find that once the payment of service tax and availment of credit resulted in revenue neutral situation, then the exception created by Rule 9(1) (bb) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He also submitted that once the appellant has p....