2020 (2) TMI 606

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Anmol Industries Limited, is engaged in the business of manufacture of different varieties of Biscuits falling under Central No. 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 3. Based on an EA 2000 audit of the excise and service tax records of the Appellant for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15, it was issued with a Show cause notice dated 26.05.2016 alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 3,05,530/- along with interest and penalty. The said SCN culminated into Order-in-Original dated 30/01/2018 wherein the Adjudicating authority confirmed the total demand as proposed along with interest and penalty and ordered for appropriati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at credit on receipt of audit memo with interest and thus the question of invoking extended period of limitation does not arise. He relied on many judgments on account of non imposition of penalty as held by the Tribunal. 6. The learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the order of the first appellate authority. 7. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 8. The short issue that arise for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the Appellant is required to again reverse the full amount of Cenvat credit on account of ineligibility of Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant during the period in which the reversal of Cenvat credit as per the procedure laid down under Rule 6(3)(b) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....slature has not enacted any provision by which Cenvat credit, which is other than the credit attributed to input services used in exempted goods or services can be recovered from the assessee". 9. Applying the same principles in the current case, I hold that the Appellant cannot be asked to reverse more than the actual Cenvat credit availed by the Appellant and based on the Chartered Accountant's certificate and Range Officer's report, there is no doubt as to the fact that the Appellant has actually followed the process of proportionate reversal under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004. Thus, I set aside the demand on the above ground. As regards imposition of penalty, I find that the disputed amount had been paid before the issuance of the show....