TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1927
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner (Appeals) has upheld the order in original dated 23.12.2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner wherein cenvat credit on the supplementary invoice issued by Lube Blending Plant (LBP), Trombay (Mumbai) of IOCL in favour of the appellant on the ground that since the supplementary invoice is in respect of input removed as such by Trombay Plant, the credit on such supplementary invoice is not admissible under Rule 9(1)(b) only supplementary invoice in respect of manufactured goods is permissible and not in respect of inputs as such. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant filed the present appeal. 2. Shri Sachin Chitnis with Shri Siddhanth Sriram and Shri Rahul Maloo, Assistant Manager Finance appearing on behalf of the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18) ELT 488 (SC) (b) MDS Switchgear - 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC) (c) Purity Flecpack - 2008 (223) ELT 382 (Guj) 2.5 He submits that when petroleum products like Base oil are stored in common storage tank/s, although the same are intermixed, it is permissible to follow the generally accepted accounting method of First-In-First-Out (FIFO) and invoking the same, it is possible to correlate the quantum of Base oil stock transferred to IOCL-LBP, Silvassa, and, hence, issuance of supplementary invoices by IOCL-LBP, Trombay, to that much quantity is correct. 2.6 He submits that it is not a case of availment of credit on Base oil immediately on receipt, under the cover of central excise invoices from IOCL-LBP-Trombay, but it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er bonafide belief, while stock transferring Base oil, duty was paid by IOCL-LBP-Trombay on RTP, even for the quantum of Base oil procured from CPCL, which cannot be treated as malafide action on their part. This gets substantiated from the fact that IOCL-LBP-Trombay's payment of differential duty was voluntary, on their volition. 2.11 He submits that once entire amount of differential duty short paid on stock transfer of Base oil was paid voluntarily, the Appellant's case is covered by the first part of Rule 9(1)(b) and does not get excluded therefrom, as differential duty was not paid due to suppression of facts, mis-declaration, etc.; 2.12 He submits that the issue was well within the knowledge of the Department, as SCN for earlier....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (d) Nizam Sugar Factory - 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC) (e) CCE vs. Cona Industries - 2017 (352) ELT 12 (Bom) 2.16 He submits that penalty is not sustainable, in the absence of any mala fide. He submits that in the absence of any materials showing positive intention on the part of the Appellants, which is a Government Undertaking, to avail credit by suppression, etc., imposition of penalty is not justified, based on following judgements: (a) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. - 2001 (136) ELT 943 (T) (b) Markfed Refined Oil & Allied - 2008 (229) ELT 557 (T) (c) -do- Upheld by P & H High Court - 2009 (243) ELT A-91 (P&H) (d) Indian Institute of Technology - 2016 (42) STR 406 (Tri) 3. On the oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al rule 9(1)(b), the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. The identical issue has been considered in following judgments: • Century Rayon 2005 (191) ELT 216 (Tri. Mum): 4. We find that provision of rule 7(b) of Cenvat Rules which deny on supplementary credit, is parimateria the provision of section 11AC. When no reasons to invoke the provisions of section 11AC are found by Deputy Commissioner Incharge of M/s. BPCL under section 11AC to be established in the facts of these supplementary demands determined by him, we cannot therefore find reason to apply the provisions of Rule 7(b) of the Cenvat Rules to deny credit to the present appellants, who have received the supplementary invoices showing the payment of duty and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Cenvat Credit were thus met by the party. The benefit was not liable to be denied on procedural grounds - impugned order is set aside - CESTAT. • Commissioner vs Home Ashok Leyland 2007 (210) ELT (178) SC: Wherein it was held that "the courts below were right in holding that Rule 57E was procedural, clarificatory and therefore would not affect the substantive rights of the manufacture of the specified final product to claim Modvat credit for the duty paid on the inputs subsequent to the date of the receipt of those inputs. Consequently, the respondent-manufacturer in the present case was entitled to take credit between the period 16-8-1987 to 30-12-1987 in the sum of Rs. 6,43,994.57." • Jindal Iron and Steel Co....