2019 (6) TMI 1610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t conducted by the Department for the period 2012-13, the availment of CENVAT credit on the amount withheld from the invoices of service providers (contractors) towards "penalty for deficiency of services and price fall clause" was disputed. The appellant accordingly reversed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 4,13,859/- on 30.09.2013 with interest of Rs. 15,940/- for the alleged contravention of second proviso to Rule 4(7) of the CCR. 2. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 08.07.2016 was issued. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand for Rs. 4,13,859/- by way of disallowance of CENVAT Credit with penalty of Rs. 2,06,930/- under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and applicable interest. In appeal, the aforesaid demand was uph....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been retained for contractual reasons. He relied upon the following decisions of Tribunal in case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Udaipur, vide Final Order no. 56669/2017 dated 01.09.2017 as well as several other decisions in support of his contentions. He also contested the demand on time bar. He further submitted that the appellant being a PSU, cannot have any reason to suppress the facts with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore penalty U/S 11AC of the C. E. Act,1944 cannot be imposed on them. 5. Sri A. Roy appearing for the Revenue while supporting the impugned order submitted that since payments have not been made to the service providers, the appellant would not be entitled to CENVAT credit proportionate on the amount....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Final Order No. 55702-55703/2016 dated 24.11.2016. 4. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, Final Order No. A/58300/2013 dated 07.11.2013. 5. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-II Final Order No.52976/2017 dated18.04.2017. Following the ratio of the settled cases as above, we find the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." 8. I also note that the above decision has been further followed by the Delhi Bench while passing Final Order no. 57461 dated 25.10.2017 pertaining to the period in dispute from April 2014 to September 2014, as reported in Hindustan Zinc Ltd vs. CCE, Udaipur reported in 2017 - TIOL- 4243-CESTAT-TIOL. Same vie....