9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, the appeal of the appellant assessee company to that extent is rejected. There being no violation of Rules, the penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on all the three appellants is unwarranted and is liable to be set aside - partly in favour of assessee. - E/710-712 of 2005 & E/340/ 11 - - - Dated:- 21-7-2011 - Dr. C. Satapathy, Mr. M.V. Ravindran, JJ. Appearance: Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R.K. Verma, DR for the Respondent All these three appeals are directed against order in original No. 47/CEX/2004 dated 30.12.2004. Since the issue involved in appeal Nos. 711-712 is consequent penalty on the individuals, all these appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. The relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has wrongly applied the provisions of Cenvat credit Rules. He would submit that the appellant company was eligible to avail Cenvat credit of first 50% and there is no bar for possession or installation or use of capital goods for availing of such credit. He submits that the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority need to be set aside. 4. Shri R.K. Verma, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue would reiterate the findings of the adjudicating authority and submit that they should have taken the credit immediately on the date when they received the capital goods in the factory premises. It is his submission that there are violations of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules due to whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill not come into play in this case as the appellant had not availed the balance 50% of the amount of CVD paid on the imported capital goods. 9. At this juncture, we find that there is no provision of law which requires the appellant to reverse the Cenvat credit of first 50% availed for non installation or use of the machinery in the factory premises. In our considered opinion, the demand of duty would not have been sustained, but since the appellant is not contesting the same and as the appellants have already discharged the said confirmed demand along with interest we uphold that portion of the order which confirmed the demand and interest on such amount. Hence, the appeal of the appellant assessee company to that extent is rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
