2026 (1) TMI 1226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that received affirmative confirmation from the Commissioner (Appeals), vide his above referred order is assailed by the assessee appellant before this forum. 2. Fact of the case, in a nut shell, is that appellant is a manufacturer of sugar molasses and its by-products and it had availed Cenvat Credit of the Central Excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods. It was pointed out during EA 2000 Audit of the record of appellant that from April 2013- June 2017, there were certain wrong availments of Cenvat Credit on inputs and of Capital Goods that was calculated to be Rs. 3,38,796/- but Appellant had already reversed Rs. 2,87,502/- keeping balance amount in respect of one amounting to Rs. 51,294/- alongwith interest and equal penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in 2009(13) S.T.R. 178 (Tri.-Ahmedabad) & Sarita Hand Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2023) 11 Centax 258 (Tri.-Chan), he further argued that when credit availed is mentioned in the Statutory record, no mala-fied can be attributed to invoke penal provision as it is a settled decision of this Tribunal that issue involving interpretation of the provision cannot be equated with intend to evade payment of duty, for which confirmation of penalty by invoking the extended period is not at all proper and therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is assailed in this case. 4. Per contra, Authorised Representative for the Respondent Department Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Assistant Commissioner argued in support of the reasoning and rationalit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat in the particulars mentioned in the said invoice, erection part is only referred against which Rs. 4,15,000/- has been posted and Service tax @ 12.36% on it comes to Rs. 51,294/- which was paid in respect of erection part alone against which Cenvat Credit is not available in terms of Rule 2(L) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 6. I am, therefore, of the considered view that Appellant may feel duty bound to pay back the said amount of Rs. 51,294/- but since it is a composite contract in which all varieties of work are also mentioned in the invoice including erection, commission, design supply satisfactory trials etc., it can be considered as an erroneous understanding of the provision of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 about such credit on er....