9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that the said provisions applied to cases where an assessee had taken irregular credit by suppression of facts, fraud etc. Held that- no reliable finding that irregular credit availed with intention to evade payment of duty. Penalty imposed is not sustainable. Credit wrongly taken but not utilized. Demand of interest not sustainable. - E/713/2008 - 518/2010 - Dated:- 22-2-2010 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) REPRESENTED BY: Shri M.A. Narayan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. - This appeal filed by M/s. Bill Forge (P) Ltd., seeks to vacate an order of the Commissioner which confirmed demand of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcess credit taken by the assessee. As the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain how they had taken irregular credit of Rs. 98,73,446/-, the Commissioner concluded that the appellant had taken such credit by misstatement with an intent to evade payment of duty . Accordingly he imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR read with Section 11AC of the Act. 3. In the appeal filed, the assessee has challenged the impugned order on various grounds. The demand of interest is assailed on the ground that the same is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., [2007 (214) E.L.T. 173 (P H)] upheld by the Apex Court as reported in 2007 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June, 2007 and that the same was reversed in September, 2007. There is no dispute that the appellant had not utilized the said credit except to the extent of Rs. 11,691/- towards education cess. The impugned order does not give any reliable finding that the assessee had taken the irregular credit with an intention to evade payment of duty. In the circumstances, we find that the penalty imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of CCR read with Section 11AC is not sustainable. In the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills cited by the appellant, the Apex Court had observed that penalty provisions under Section 11AC would come into play only after an order was passed under Section 11A(2) with a findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
