9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst them. - E/287/2008-SM(BR) - 199/2010-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 4-2-2010 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> None, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 566/CE/CHD/REV/2007 dated <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /> 14-11-2007 . 2. None appears for the appellant inspite of notice. On earlier occasions (i.e. on 24-12-2009 ) also none represented the appellants. 3. Heard the learned DR and perused the records. 4. The appellant is a manufacturer of PVC cotton fabrics and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e conclusion that no penalty was warranted. Commissioner (Appeals) imposed penalty with the following findings and observations :- “5. I have examined the case records. The issue requiring determination is whether in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are liable to penal action under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for not debiting the Cenvat credit involved on the inputs stocks before availing exemption. The appellant were paying duty on the excisable goods manufactured by them and were also availing Cenvat credit before opting to avail exemption w.e.f. 1-5-2004 under notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 . 6. From the facts it is observed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluding that they have intentionally evaded any excise duty warranting penalty under Rule 13(2) read with Section 11AC. The obligation for reversing the credit itself has been in dispute in other cases. Merely because the appellant has not disputed the advise or direction to pay the amount equal to credit attributable to the inputs in stock and inputs contained in the goods in process and finished goods in stock and paid the amount and the same cannot be held against them and penalty imposed. It is clearly a case involving interpretation of legal provisions and no suppression of any relevant facts is attributable to the appellants. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be allowed to survive. The same is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
