2005 (11) TMI 298

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is challenging the imposition of 25% of duty liability as penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants are manufacturers of Motor Vehicles. They availed CENVAT credit facility. The Department had noticed that they had cleared tools, dies and moulds, on which credit was availed, to the manufacturers of components contravening Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmediately before the issue of show cause notice, then they would have been eligible for the credit and penalty would not have been imposable. He submits that the rule is very clear that they were to reverse the credit, if they were to clear the goods to other manufacturers. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined all the facts and taken a lenient view. The Original authori .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eld that the penalty imposed is only 25% of the total duty demanded as against the penalty imposable at 100% of the same. As the appellant were imposed with only 25% of the total duty demanded as penalty, the same was directed to be pre-deposited at the time of hearing of the stay application. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. As there is no merit in the appeal, therefore th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X