2009 (5) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tive action was taken by the appellants themselves. Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to impose nominal penalty cannot be found fault with. Since all the units belong to the same company, just because each unit is registered separately, it cannot be said that separate penalty must have been imposed. I do not find anything wrong with the discretion used by the Commissioner - As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (hereinafter referred to as Unit-III) are group companies and engaged in the manufacture of Dyes. Both the units are availing the facility of Cenvat credit. 2. The facts in brief are the Unit-II had availed credit of Rs. 4,02,190/- without receipt of inputs in their factory premises but which was actually received in Unit-III. On being pointed out by their internal audit, Unit-II reversed the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, they need not pay interest. The Revenue is in appeal. 4. Learned JCDR submitted that as per Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, interest is payable on credit wrongly taken irrespective of the fact as to whether the appellants had sufficient balance or not. She also submitted that penalty should have been imposed on both the appellants, even if they belong to the same company since both are separa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X