TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Order-in-Original No.KNP-EXCUS-000-COM-028-15-16 dated 11.01.2016 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur. By the impugned order following has been held as under:- ORDER 1. I deny the CENVAT credit amounting to Rs.3,64,06,128/- (Rs. Three Crores Sixty Four Lakhs Six Thousand One Hundred Twenty Six only), wrongly availed and utilized by M/s Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd., A-2, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Jainpur, Ramabai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat. I confirm and determine the demand of aforesaid amount against aforesaid party in terms of Section 11A (10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and order the aforesaid party to pay the aforesaid in terms of Section 11A (14) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, I als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dehat under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the reasons discussed here-in-above." 2.1 Appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of excisable goods classifiable under heading 22011020, 22021010, 22029020 and 22021090 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also availing of Cenvat Credit as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2.2 During the course of scrutiny of records by the audit officers, it was observed that appellant availed irregular Cenvat Credit by way of taking the credit ➢ to the extent of value of inputs/ capital goods instead of the amount of excise duty paid on the said goods; ➢ to the tune of 100% ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2.5 Show cause notice has been adjudicated as per the impugned order referred in para 1 above. Aggrieved Appellants have filed these appeals. 3.1 We have heard Shri Atul Gupta & Ms. Aayushi Srivastava Advocate for the Appellants and Shri A. K. Choudhary Departmental Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 4.1 We have considered the impugned order along with submissions made in appeal and during the course of arguments. 4.2 We find that the impugned order appropriates an amount of Rs.3,58,58,266/- alongwith interest of Rs.48,132/- reversal/payment which was reported ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by way of issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A (4) to the extent of these amounts paid. We do not find any merits in the impugned order invoking extended period of limitation. 4.3 For remaining amounts, we find that the whole issue is that credit has been taken against the bill of entries; however at the time of Audit/scrutiny, Appellant produced photocopies of the bill of entries as original was not traceable. Nothing is available on record to show that the original copy of the bill of entries was subsequently produced. Let it be as it is, we find that this issue is no more res integra and following has been held by Delhi Bench in the case of Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (7) TMI 984 - CESTAT New Delhi. "7. We have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party has placed reliance upon such provisions being available in the law for condonation of the lapses, but surprisingly, I find that the party itself has never applied for any such permission. In view of the fact that the party never approached the jurisdictional Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner with request to condone the technical lapse and allow such Credit, as per provisions under the said Rules, I find that the party miserably failed to seek the opportunity of getting benefited in this regard." 4.5 In view of the above findings recorded in the impugned order we do not find any merits either invocation of extended period of limitation for denial of the credit on this ground. Demand to this extent also needs to be set aside. 4.6 We s....