2025 (6) TMI 1586

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. The facts in brief are the Appellant is engaged in manufacture of simulators falling under Chapter 8505 of CETA, 1985 which attracts 'nil' rate of duty. Hence no duty was paid on the simulators as they were 'nil' rate of duty goods and they are supplied to Ministry of Defence and they are not registered with Central Excise Department as the 'Aircraft simulators' attracts nil rate of duty. Appellant was also providing services and was registered with the service tax department under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service', 'Consulting Engineer Service' and 'Maintenance or Repair service'. Alleging that the appellant had availed and utilized ineligible Cenvat credit, proceedings were initiated. Accordingly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Rs.1,34,67,090/- and the proportionate Cenvat credit wrongly availed on exempted goods for the Financial Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 was only Rs. 16,81,342/- and Rs. 13,69,721/-, respectively. However, as per the impugned order demand for reversal of credit was Rs. 3,45,42,699/- 4. Learned Counsel further submits that with respect to such exempted turnover, Appellant had reversed the proportionate Cenvat credit of Rs. 16,81,342/- and Rs. 13,69,721/- vide Challan dated 05.04.2010. However, adjudication authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 3,45,42,699/-, without considering the above facts. Learned Counsel also draws our attention to the provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the disputed period and submits that a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....X. & S.T., Medchal - 2020 (43) G.S.T.L. 395 (Tri. -Hyd.) xi. Foods, Fats, Fertilizer Ltd Vs. CCE 2011 (22) STR 484 (Tri-Bang) xii. Syndet India Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE 2006 (201) ELT 104 (Tri-Del xiii. Tata Technologies limited commissioner of Central excice, Pune-I vs CCE 2016-TIOL-272-CESTAT-MUM xiv. Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune 2016 (42) S.T.R. 387 (Tri. - Mumbai) xv. Aster Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. CCE (2016) 43 STR 411 (Tri. - 11th January 2017 Hyd.) xvi. Inox Leisure Limited Vs. CCE 2016 (41) STR 102 (Tri-Ahmd) - xvii. Commissioner Vs. Ciron Drugs & Pharma P Ltd 2018 (14) GSTL J73 (Bom) xviii. Shahyadri Starch Industries P Ltd case (Final Order No. A/8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to know about such omission, they have reversed the credit wrongly availed against the exempted goods along with interest, once the department accepted the same, there is no reason or justification to invoke the penal provisions and to proceed to confirm the demand. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE Vs. ETA Technology Pvt., Ltd. (supra) has taken note of the amendment and held that the reversal of credit availed would be sufficient and there is no need to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods. Further, in the matter of Tata Technologies limited (Supra) it was held that once the assessee have filed the declaration, though belatedly, due to minor procedural lapses, substantial benefit cannot be denied. The inten....