9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... once the duty and interest are paid, the matter is to be treated to have been concluded and no show cause notice is required to be issued - Appeals are allowed - E/612 & 613 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2011 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. For Appellant : Shri Alkesh Thakrar, Managing Director For Respondent : Shri R.S. Srova, JDR Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; M/s. Sandeep Enterprises Pvt. Limited (SEPL for short), the assessee availed cenvat credit of Rs. 31,700/- wrongly on various grounds. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant company and its Managing Director Shri Alkesh Thakrar culminated into confirmation of penalty equal to cenvat credit imposed on the appellant company as well as on the Managing Director and al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue is limited to penalty only, instead of considering the stay application, appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides, after waiver of requirement of pre-deposit. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides and have gone through the entire show cause notice. Nowhere in the show cause notice there is specific allegation that the appellant had deliberately taken wrong credit. In fact, it has been stated that assessee has availed the credit wrongly. Further, I also find that when summarising the defence reply, the original adjudicating authority had taken note of the fact that the SEPL had stated that they had never availed cenvat credit wrongly intentionally but it was due to clerical mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve limited the demand to normal period as soon as the same was pleaded. There was no need for the appellants to provide any evidence to show that extended period is not applicable. In any case, the appellant have been fair enough in not taking shelter behind the limitation to avoid payment of cenvat credit wrongly taken by them. Their only request was for waiver of penalty which has been made before the original adjudicating authority also and two appellate authorities sustained the penalties without giving any reasons whatsoever. The learned Commissioner rejected the appeal memo on the ground that limitation was not pleaded and observed that under such circumstances meaning thereby other grounds brought out by the appellants, all the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
