9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants had taken Cenvat Credit on Capital goods to the extent of 100% paid thereon during the year 2005-06, whereas they were required to avail 50% of the credit in the said financial year and balance 50% was to be availed in the next financial year. The appellants reversed the said credit on the objection being taken by the Revenue. However, subsequently a show cause notice was issued to them for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iability to interest was concerned. Accordingly, he rejected Revenue s appeal on the claim of interest. As regards penalty, he observed that the provisions of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are concerned, mens rea is not the requirement. Inasmuch as the appellant had admittedly violted the rule, he, by following the Tribunal s judgment in case of CCE, Kolkata v. M/s. International Ferrite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Admittedly, there has been procedural violation of provision of Modvat Rules, which call for a token penalty upon the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- only upon the appellant, which cannot be held to be excessive. As such, I find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner Appeals). 5. Appeal filed by the appellant is, accordingly rejected. (Pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
