TRIMULA INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus CGST C.E & C. C-BHOPAL
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 903 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Appeal No. E/53187/2018-SMC – A/53503/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri P.R. Gupta & S. Nunthutk, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Anil Choudhary:
1. Heard the parties. The issue in this appeal is whether the show cause notice has been rightly issued invoking the extended period of limitation.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a manufacturer of sponge iron. During the course of audit for the period February, 2014 to March, 2015 it was noticed that appellant have wrongly taken Cenvat Credit of input services amounting to Rs. 2,22,252/- being the services used in the employee hostel and other repairs and maintenance in the plant. On the objection raised by the audit vide spot memo dated 9th July, 2015, on the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to mention here that the Noticee are registered with Central Excise Department since long and they are aware of the Rules/Sections/ Notifications/ Laws & Procedures of the Department. In spite of that they had taken inadmissible Cenvat Credit, which was not admissible to them. The Noticee are working under Self Removal Procedure and they are clearing their goods on self-assessment basis without physical verification or valuation by the Central Excise Officers and therefore, it is the prime responsibility of the Noticee to take all precautions to avoid such lapses, wrong/excess availment of Cenvat Credit, breach of any of the Rule/Section of the Central Excise Act/Rules etc. In spite of the same they had taken inadmissible Cenvat Credit. Further, it appeared that the Noticee had done the said act with intent to evade payment of Central Excise Duty liveable on final products cleared by them by way of utilizing such inadmissible Cenvat Credit.
Since the notice have suppressed the mater
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
pre-deposit already made further interest was demanded and also penalty was imposed of equal amount under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004.
5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who have been pleased to hold that there is no applicability of interest as the amount have not been utilized following the ruling of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST V/s Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (279) ELT 209. Further he was pleased to uphold the demand and also upheld the invoking of extended period of limitation. However, as the appellant had maintained proper records of such credit taken in their books of account, was pleased to reduce the penalty to 50%.
6. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.
7. Heard the parties.
8. Having considered the rival contentions I hold that the transaction was duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant. Secondly a major part of the credit relates to repair and maintenance which is defi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =