9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 976X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder]. Relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of HDPE/PP Bags and fabrics and availed Cenvat facility. The appellants availed Cenvat credit on capital goods of 100% credit instead of 50% during the period April, 2000 to July, 2001 by mistake. Subsequently, they reversed the credit on 22-1-2002 along with interest. A show cause notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t warranted. He further submits that they have produced the records before the audit party and penalty under Rule 27 of the Rules is not justified. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CCE v. Sigma Steel Tubes Nrs. [2007 (218) E.L.T. 657 (P H), wherein it has been held that for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act mens rea is esse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usal of the records, I find that the facts are not in dispute that the appellants availed 100% credit on capital goods during the period April, 2000 to July, 2001. During the audit, it was detected that the appellants have taken excess credit. It has also been alleged that the appellants have not produced the records to the audit party. However, the appellants reversed the credit immediately upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is not warranted. However, there is contravention of law and, therefore, imposition of penalty under Rule 27 of the Rules not (sic) justified. 5. In view of the above discussion, penalty under Section 11AC is set aside. Penalty under Rule 27 of the Rules is upheld. Appeal is disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
