TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 425
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngg. Ltd, whereas Appeal No.E/75618/2017 has been filed by the Department against the aforesaid adjudication Order. The period in dispute in the present appeals ranges from May 2005 to February 2011. 2. The assessee is a Heavy Engineering and Steel Foundry Division of Texmaco Ltd which got demerged and transferred to Texmaco Rail & Engineering Limited w.e.f. 01.04.2010 in terms of the Order dated 06.09.2010 passed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. Hence, the present proceedings initiated by issuance of the impugned Show Cause Notice on "Texmaco Limited" stands transferred in the name of "Texmaco Rail & Engineering Limited" (assessee) accordingly. 3. The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods which are dutiable as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ountant. The assessee made the reversal of credit of above amount and also made payment of interest of Rs, 39,12,505/-. On the basis of above, the Ld. Commissioner has concluded the proceedings and dropped the remaining demand for the aforesaid period against which the Department has preferred the instant appeal. The grievance of the Department is basically on two counts - (i) that the application for seeking reversal of proportionate credit, as aforementioned, has been made beyond the prescribed period of 6 months i.e. beyond 7th November 2010 and therefore, the benefit of reversal of proportionate credit should not be allowed and (ii) dispute with regard to quantification of demand. 7. For the remaining period April 2008 to February 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Dashion Ltd wherein it has been held that substantial benefit of credit should not be denied for procedural irregularity. 10. The Ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue has contested the appeal filed by the assessee and reiterated the observations made by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order and submitted that when the assessee has not followed the due procedure of law by not filing the required declaration, the assessee cannot be given immunity from payment of credit amount as prescribed in Rule 6(3) of the Credit Rules. He accordingly requested that the appeal of the assessee be rejected being devoid of any merit. 11. We find that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....envat Credit wrongly, Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 empowered the authorities to recover such credit which had been taken or utilised wrongly along with interest. However, the second respondent did not choose to exercise power under this Rule but relied upon Rule 6(3)(i) and made the choice of the option thereunder for the petitioner, viz., to pay 5%/6% of the value of the exempted services. The statutory scheme did not vest the second respondent with the power of making such a choice on behalf of the petitioner. The Order-in-Original, to the extent that it proceeded on these lines, therefore cannot be countenanced." 12. Applying the ratio of the above decisions, we are of the view that the demand of the duty amount calculated....