2011 (6) TMI 539

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oked after the work during the period made the mistake. being the position without verifying the claim made by the appellant that the regular Clerk was on leave and this was a bona fide mistake, imposition of mandatory penalty cannot be justified. it was a bona fide mistake. Further, the appellant had not at all challenged the demands. penalty is set aside. appellant is not challenging the interst and shall pay the same forthwith.
Shri B.S.V. Murthy, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri G.K. Gundu Rao, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Sabrina Cano, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - During the audit of the appellant's factory, it was found that the appellant has taken cenvat credit which was not admissible amounting to Rs. 1,46,183/-. Proceedi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . CCE, Meerut [1999 (111) E.L.T. 215 (Tri.)] (c) UOI v. Dharamendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] (d) UOI v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] (e) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. CCE, Bombay [1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)] (f) Usha Martin Construction Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Kanpur [2008 (228) E.L.T. 276 (Tri.-Del.)] (g) Cosmic Dye Chemical v. Collector of CE, Bombay [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.)] (h) C.C.E., Ahmedabad v. Bodal Chemicals Ltd. [2009 (243) E.L.T. 464 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] (i) UP State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-I [2008 (230) E.L.T. 532 (Tri.-Del.)] 3. Ld. DR submits that in this case the credit taken was irregular and it had happened over a period of nearly an year as emer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lar Clerk was on leave and this was a bona fide mistake, imposition of mandatory penalty cannot be justified. Further, it has not also been brought out anywhere in the records even though ld. DR submitted that the omission occurred over a period of one year, no verification or any record is available to show that the omission occurred over a period of one year and not during the period when the regular Clerk was on leave. That being the position, the claim of bona fide mistake because of a Clerk being on leave seems to be justified. Further the fact that the appellant always had more than the wrong credit taken in their cenvat credit account also supports the submission of the ld. Advocate that there was no intention to avail wrong credit. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X