TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 376
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at does not confirm the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,86,65,736/- and Rs. 3,50,31,000/-, in regard to the show cause notices dated April 25, 2012 and November 27, 2012 with interest and consequential penalty, two cross objections were filed by M/S Hindustan Zinc Limited [The Respondent], which is a respondent in this appeal. 2. The appeal and the cross objections were decided by the Tribunal by order dated April 6, 2017. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed and so were the two cross objections. 3. The Respondent preferred and Excise Appeal bearing No. 2010 of 2019, before the Rajasthan High Court raising a grievance that the cross-objections had been wrongly dismissed. The High Court, by judgment and order dated July 4, 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufacturing units of the Respondent and also sold to the Electricity Board. 5. The Respondent filed replies to the aforesaid show cause notices and also filed additional submissions stating that the proportionate credit amounting to Rs. 39,11,958/- and Rs. 15,42,102/-, attributable to both the show cause notices to the inputs used in generation of electricity which was sold to the Electricity Board was calculated and reversed on a monthly basis. The Respondent also submitted that the demands computed under the two show cause notices were in excess of Rs. 69,307/- and Rs. 65,826/-, and hence needed to be dropped. 6. The two show cause notices were adjudicated upon by the Commissioner by a common order dated July 19, 2013. The demand of CENV....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. 8. Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has made following submissions:- (i) The reversal of CENVAT credit on proportionate basis tantamounts to non-taking of CENVAT credit and in support of this submission learned counsel placed reliance upon decisions of the Supreme Court in Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (81) E.L.T. 3 SC] and Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. M/S Precot Meridian Limited [2015 (325) E.L.T. 234 (S.C.)]; (ii) Penalty is not impossible upon the respondent under rule 15(1) of the Rules since the respondent was under a bonafide belief that CENVAT credit availed by it and reversed was in accordance wi....