9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. AT/525/M-11/2005, dated 7-11-2005. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the non-payment of 8% of the amount of the value of the exempted goods cleared by the appellant by utilizing the duty paid inputs for manufacturing of dutiable as well as exempted goods under the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered by the Division Bench's decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-II - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 190 (Tri.). 4. The ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority and submits that this is a fit case, where penalty is to be imposed. 5. Considered the submission made at length by both sides and perused the records. It is undisputed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under :- On a careful consideration and perusal of records, it is very clear that in terms of the impugned order, there was no machinery for recovery of the amount. The Tribunal, in the case of Pushpaman Forgings Ltd., held it so. The judgment of Pushpaman Forgings Ltd. was upheld by the Apex Court. Therefore, Clause 82 of the Finance Act, 2005 was promulgated to recover the amount retrospectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eversed the 8% amount and hence, penalty and interest is not required to be levied in the matter. The appeal is allowed by setting aside the penalty and interest in the matter. 6. I find that the above ratio of the Division Bench squarely covers the issue before me. As such, the issue is squarely covered in the favour of the appellants and the impugned order to the extent of confirmation of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
