TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application is allowed, as prayed for subject to just exceptions. Main Case 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act, 1944') against the order dated 12.08.2015 (Annexure A-3) passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter to be mentioned as 'the Tribunal') in Excise Appeal No.E/108/2007. 2. The brief matrix of the case is given hereunder:- The respondent-Company which is engaged in the manufacture of ceramic glazed tiles (wall and floor tiles) and unglazed ceramic vitrified porcelain tiles and is having two separate registration certificates from the Central Excise Department for their manufacture, had been paying d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e imposed upon its officials/officers and itself for acts of omission and commission. The appellant then passed an order dated 18.10.2006 of assessment thereby raising demand of a sum of Rs.21,32,778/- after depositing an amount of Rs.1,45,00,289/- by the petitioner out of the amount of Rs.1,66,33,067/- which was equivalent to cenvat credit taken by the respondent on inputs in stock, in process or in its final products. Penalty amount of Rs.20 lacs under Rule 25 of the Rules, 2002 and Rs.50,000/- each on its General Manager (Finance) and Senior Manager (Excise) was also assessed. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed vide order dated 12.08.2015. 5. Dissatisfied, the appellant-revenu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the extended period? (ii) Whether, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the interest on the Rs.1,66,33,067/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Six Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Sixty Seven) recoverable from the Company from the date of the amount becoming recoverable i.e. 07.08.2003 to the date of actual payment under Rule 12 of the Rules read with Section 11AB of the Act? (iii) Whether, the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the Penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) imposed on the Company under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as well as the penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each imposed on Sh. R.K. Lakhotia, General Manager (Finance) and on Sh. K.Shankaranlyer, Senior Manager (Excise) of the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein a Coordinate Bench of this Court which was dealing with a similar matter, had observed that it was not in dispute that the assessee had paid the duty on inputs used in the indicated manufacturing of final goods, he had maintained separate accounts/record, duly entered credit of duty paid on the inputs in the manufacture of final goods and validly availed the cenvat credit. It was held that the same could not be reversed on the ground that the final products which were agricultural tractors, were subsequently exempted from tax; Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., 1999 (112) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.), wherein, the manufacturer had obtained credit for excise duty paid on raw material to be used by him in the production o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee could be asked to reverse the modvat credit already taken by it even though the final product might be exempted from payment of excise subsequently. 9. On applying the ratio of law as laid down in the authorities cited above to the present case, it is crystal clear that the cenvat credit had been taken by the respondent-department when the final products were exigible to duty. It was availed on inputs till the date of exemption vested in assessee. The respondent could not be divested of that credit as there was no statutory provision to do so. The right to avail credit is indefeasible and there cannot be stated to be any co-relation between the raw material and the final product; that is say, it is not as if the credit could be t....