TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hyderabad. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant manufactures coconut oil, tooth paste, soaps and detergents and is registered with the Central Excise Department. The Officers of Central Excise, on receiving intelligence that the appellant was not properly discharging central excise duty and not maintaining books of accounts properly, searched the factory premises of the appellant on 18.12.2010 and found some discrepancies as follows: (i) Differential duty required to be paid on account of wrong calculation of abatement during the period 2009-10 amounting to Rs. 57,179/-. This was calculated based on the invoices produced by the appellant themselves. (ii) Shortage of goods compared to RG-1 register which i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them the CENVAT Credit entitlement. 5. The appellant had, however, paid the entire amounts except the CENVAT Credit on capital goods received in the invoices issued in their former registered name, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant M/s Farmax India Limited, on 19.07.2011, covering the period 2009-10 and 2010-11, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A, demanding all the aforesaid amounts along with interest, under Section 11AB. It was also proposed to impose penalty upon the appellant under section 11AC/Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 2002. 6. The show cause notice was also proposed to be issued to Shri Y.V.L.N. Prasad, Accountant; Shri K.B. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the stock verification, they had immediately paid the central excise duty involved. The fact of payment has been recorded in the impugned order. As far as the differential duty on account of wrong calculation of the abatement during 2009-10 is concerned, the differential duty works out to Rs. 57,179/- and the basis for this was the invoices produced by the appellants themselves. On being pointed out, they paid the differential duty along with interest well before the show cause notice was issued. She also asserts that they have paid the excess credit of 50% availed on capital goods amounting to Rs. 2,76,417/- as confirmed in the impugned order itself. She would submit that they are only disputing denial of CENVAT Credit on invoices whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assesable value, Central Excise, name and address of the factory or warehouse and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of the account of the receiver, he may allow the CENVAT Credit. Therefore, the appellants should have approached the lower authority and should have obtained the permission for availing the credit. In this case it is not coming out from the records whether they approached to the lower authority for such permission." 10. We find that out of the four items of demand, three have already been paid by the appellant and Ld. Counsel would submit that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observations of the first appellate authority with respect to this amount. 11. We find that the first appellate authority has correctly set aside the personal penalties imposed by the original authority as no show cause notice was issued at all to them. 12. As far as the imposition of penalties under section 11AC upon the appellant is concerned, we do not find in this factual matrix any element necessary to invoke either the extended period of limitation for demanding under section 11A or imposing penalty under Section 11AC. The basis of the entire demand is the ER-1 returns and the invoices produced by the appellants themselves except to the extent of shortage noticed during physical verification of stock. The duty involved in such sh....