9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 471X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants had taken Cenvat credit of Basic Customs Duty, Countervailing Duty, and Special Additional Customs Duty, totalling to Rs. 8,13,752/-, on their input imported and cleared under Bill of Entry dated 16-3-2001. This credit was taken on 7-12-2001. The Department found that they had illegally taken Cenvat credit of Basic Customs Duty and Special Additional Customs Duty, amounting to Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral Excise Rules, 2002 on account of their carelessness in availing Cenvat credit. The appellate authority also sustained the Section 11AB demand of interest on duty. The present appeal of the party is against this interest and the Rule 25 penalty. 2Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the order of the original authority dropping Rule 25 penalty was not challenged by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. In this context, it is submitted that the payment had been voluntarily made pursuant to the Department s direction contained in the show-cause notice. 3Ld. DR, in regard to interest on duty, submits that the proviso to Section 11AB(1) cited by the ld. Counsel is not applicable to the facts of this case. As regards the Rule 25 penalty, the findings recorded in the impugned order are reiterated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though proposed in the relevant show-cause notice, was not imposed by the original authority. The Revenue was not aggrieved by this decision of the original authority. In the circumstances, it was not open to the appellate authority to take recourse to Rule 25 for imposing penalty on the party. The decision of the Tribunal in Gandhilon Texturisers (supra) is squarely supportive of the Counsel s ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
