TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 446
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The present appeal concerns irregular availment of Cenvat Credit on certain inputs that were used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Total credit disallowed by the department to the appellant is to the tune of Rs.7,38,149/-. 2. During the Course of audit of the appellant's firm, it was observed that the appellant had cleared spare-parts into the domestic market to various dealers that were not used in the tractor manufacturing process. The said clearances were made after discharging the payment of leviable excise duty. The appellant was, however, issued a show cause notice dated 18.11.2019, demanding from them credit availed on inputs and capital goods alongwith interest for the aforesaid amount.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....taking any manufacturing activity on such goods and had paid admissible Central Excise duty thereon, amounting to non-availment of any credit on the impugned goods and therefore they were not liable anymore for reversal of credit or payment of the demanded amount alongwith interest. He further submits that the present demand was in terms of Rule 6(4) of the Rules, and that the learned Commissioner failed to appreciate that the spare-parts so cleared were not directly used in the manufacture of impugned goods, while rule 6 (ibid) was applicable when there is manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods. He submits that the said spare parts were procured independently of their use, in the manufacturing process of exempted goods, and submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the payment of Central Excise duty. He further places reliance in the case of Sterlite Telelink Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi [2014(312)ELT 353 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] in support of their stance. The appellant also submits that in view of the fact that they were subjected to regular audit by the department, the allegation of suppression is not made out. He further submits that the fact of there having no intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty was clearly evident by the fact that the subject goods when cleared were subjected to leviable appropriate rate of Central Excise duty and that necessary returns were filed and all records duly maintained. He therefore, submits that no penalty was leviable on them in the matter. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtaking any further manufacturing activity thereon. 11. On the aspect of limitation, it is noted that the period impugned in the matter is January, 2015- June, 2017, whereas the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant on 18.11.2019 that is after nearly two and a half years. In view of the fact that the appellant had on their own volition reversed the credit on the capital goods and cleared the spare parts on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty, I find no justification in the Revenue's charge of invocation of suppression of facts, mis-statement etc. The coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lakshmi Engineering Works vs. CCE [1989 (44) ELT 353 (Tri.)] as upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [1991(51) ELT A33], h....