2009 (11) TMI 785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... days and also failed to reverse Cenvat credit taken on the inputs which were rejected at the end of job workers but cost of the same was recovered from these job workers. The respondents paid all the dues along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. Later on a show cause notice was issued to the respondents for imposition of penalty under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The penalty was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Against that penalty the respondents preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who reduced the penalty to Rs. 2000/-. Being aggrieved with the reduction of the penalty, the Revenue is in appeal before me. 3. The learned SDR appearing for the Revenue contended that the respondents h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecific charge leveled against the assessee, intention to evade payment of duty is to be proved, no penalty can be imposed. She further contended that show-cause notice is also time barred and on that count the penalty is not imposable. 5. Heard both sides. 6. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the parties, I find that in the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has elaborately discussed the issue. This case pertains to non-reversal of Cenvat credit on account of non-receiving the input from the job workers within the stipulated period of 180 days which is dealt by Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The relevant extracts of the Rule are reproduced below :- Rule 4(5)(a). The Cenvat credit shall be allow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at Credit Rules in view of the fact that the inputs were not received within stipulated time of 180 days and the reversal was made not suo motu but on being pointed out by the Department. I am, therefore, of the view that penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is imposable. 7. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The learned DR has failed to prove that there was no mala fide intention of the respondent to evade the payment of duty. There is also no specific allegations against respondent in the show-cause notice that the respondent has intentionally evaded the payment of duty. In this situation, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross Objection filed in support of Order-i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X