2009 (2) TMI 650

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rao, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. In terms of the impugned order, the appellants are required to pre-deposit the following amounts : (a) Duty of Rs 82,67,386/- (Rs 82,45,876/- of Cenvat credit + 21,510/- of Education Cess) (b) Penalty of Rs 8,26,739/- under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Rs 8,26,739/- under Rule 25 of the Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise (Appeals) Mumbai-I [2008 (229) E.L.T. 364 (Tri.-LB)]. 5. The learned Advocate took us through the relevant paragraphs in the findings in the Larger Bench decision and distinguished the facts of the Larger Bench case from the present one. Further, similar situation has been dealt with in the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shyam Textile Mills ANR.v. UOI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2007 in the case of M/s. RINL v. CCE, Visakhapatnam-1 (b) Visakhapatnam Steel Plant v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 708 (Tri.-Bang.) 7. It was also stated that the Gujarat High Court decision was not brought to the notice of the Larger Bench. 8. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that in this case, the appellant had not at all utilized the credit. In fact, wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X