TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 271
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admissible Cenvat Credit; • Demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs.1,15,64,553/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking the proviso extended time limit along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; • Imposition of penalty of Rs.1,15,64,553/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; • Imposition of penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- on Shri Sanjay Sharma, Authorized Signatory of the appellant under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for his various omissions and commissions. 2.1 Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is the distillery engaged in the manufacturing of alcoholic liquor for human consumption which is a non-excisable item. The appellant took out excise registration on 16.11.2009 for manufacture Denatured Ethyl Alcohol which was an excise item and started paying duty on the same. In August 2008, the appellant had started manufacturing the pet bottles which were being used captively within the factory for the filling of the alcohol liquor. The appellant did not pay duty on the pet bottles ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant on 09.10.2012 seeking demand of central excise duty amounting to Rs.1,15,64,553/- in cash on the pet bottles on the ground that the appellant had cleared the goods captively during the period August, 2008 to May, 2010 without obtaining central excise registration, without payment of central excise duty at the time of clearance, without filing ER-1 returns and without following the procedure of law. The Department also invoked Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules to demand the duty in cash alleging that the appellant had defaulted in payment of duty beyond 30 days from the due date and therefore they were not allowed to use Cenvat Credit for the purpose of payment of duty. The Show Cause Notice also sought to deny Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.1,20,58,441/- on the ground that the same had been availed without following the procedures and without obtaining central excise registration. Further the Department invoked the extended period of limitation alleging suppression by the appellant. 2.3 After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the entire demands as per the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice by invoking the extended period of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Engg. Co. Ltd vs. CCE, Patna - 2001 (131) ELT 681 (Tribunal) • Ajay Industrial Corp. vs. CCE, Meerut - 2002 (147) ELT 786 (Tribunal) • Aditya Industries vs. CCE, Hyderabad - 2007 (220) ELT 196 (Tribunal) • Formica India Division vs. Collector of CE - 1995 (77) ELT 511 (SC) • CCE, Jaipur vs. Mahavir Aluminum Ltd - 2007 (212) ELT 3 (SC) 4.6 He further submits that eligibility of the Cenvat Credit had been examined by the Department as the Department had examined the copies of the invoices and the details of the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant before the issuance of Show Cause Notice. No objection was ever raised by the Department regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit. The appellant was only asked to pay differential duty on account of different rates of duty which existed and on account of CAS-4 Valuation of captively consumed pet bottles, which was deposited by the appellant; hence, the credit cannot be denied at a later stage by issuing a Show Cause Notice. 4.7 He further submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the same has been raised after more than 2 years of the appellant having voluntari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pay duty and subsequently paid the duty for the period August, 2008 to June, 2010 out of the Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods and also paid the interest of Rs.8,84,585/- in cash and intimated the same to the Department vide their letters dated 13.06.2010 and 23.06.2010. The appellant also paid some amount as demanded by the Department along with interest which is not disputed. 7. Further, we find that when the appellant paid the duty along with interest voluntarily and the same was not disputed by the Department, then as per the provisions of sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, there was no necessity to issue the Show Cause Notice. 8. Further, we find that the Department has wrongly relied on the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, because Rule 8(3A) is applicable in cases where assessees are otherwise paying duty but for certain reasons commit default in not paying duty by due date. 9. Further, we find that the provisions of Rule 8(3A) have been held to be ultra vires in the case of Indsur Global Ltd vs. UOI - 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj.), though initially the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the said decision repo....