TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are that the appellant had utilized the credit of EC and SHEC in the Returns filed for May, 2015 while discharging the liability to pay the excise duty. During audit of records, it was noticed that the appellant had wrongly utilized the EC and SHEC for discharging the central excise duty as the goods and services for the same were received prior to 01.03.2015 in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3(7)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) inserted by Notification No.12/2015-C.E. (NT) dated 30.04.2015. Show cause notice dated 29.05.2020 was issued to the appellant as to why an amount of Rs.1,97,346/- be not recovered from the appellant along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, vide order-in-original dated 12.01.2022, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e findings of the Authorities below and submitted that the declaration made by the appellant in ER-I was not complete disclosure. As per the notification, on which the appellant had placed reliance required that the goods and services should have been received in the factory of manufacturer on or after 1.3.2015 was not complied with. The appellant had deliberately suppressed the facts with an intent to evade payment of duty as only an amount of Rs.60,485/- pertained to the period after 1.3.2015 out of the utilized amount of Rs.2,57,831/- and the balance amount of Rs.1,97,346/- pertained to the period prior to 1.3.2015, which was not admissible in terms of the notification and, therefore, the extended period of limitation under Section 11 A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71,932/- and Higher Education Cess Amount of Rs.85,899/- used in payment of Excise (Basic) duty." 8. Considering the declaration above, I am of the opinion that it is a mis-leading declaration with an intent to evade payment of duty under the Act. The appellant consciously took the benefit of the notification no.12/2015 for the purpose of utilizing the 'EC' and 'SHEC' towards payment of excise duty, which otherwise was not permissible. But deliberately did not comply with the conditions specified for such utilization, which required that the credit of EC and SHEC paid on inputs or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final products on or after the 1st day of March, 2015 could be utilized for the payment of duty of excis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he excise duty and the service tax had been treated as different and separate and cross utilization was never permitted. Though the decision of the Delhi High Court is under challenge before the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.020273/2018, however, no stay of the impugned order has been granted. Even prior to the decision in Cellular Operators Association of India (supra) Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Fieldman Engineers Ltd. Vs. Central Excise and ST, Rajkot - 2018 (363) ELT 1067 (T-Ahmedabad) has specifically held that cenvat credit lying in balance in the account of Higher Secondary Education Cess and accumulated before 1.3.2015 can be used only for discharge of Cess as provided under the rules and cannot be used for discharging the liabili....