9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri Anil Khanna, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order imposing the penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(2) ibid. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have procured inputs during the course of their manufacturing activity. On scrutiny, it was found that on some invoices although the appellants have taken cenvat credit, it did not mention vehicle number or mode of transportation of inputs in the factory of the appellants. Therefore, the show cause notice was issued for denial of cenvat credit for contravention of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and for imposing penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue and submitted that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle number/mode of transportation was not mentioned in the invoices as per Rule 9(2) ibid, the assessee cannot take cenvat credit where these particulars are not mentioned in the invoices. Therefore, the appellants have contravened the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the appellants are liable to be penalised. Moreover, the appellants have not been alleged that they have taken cenvat credit by fraud, collusion or mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of rules with intent to evade duty. Therefore, the lower authorities has rightly imposed penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. He further submits that the show cause notice clearly shows that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oreover, the provision of Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that if there is any contravention of rules then the goods liable for confiscation and the assessee is liable to be penalized. Admittedly in this case, the goods were not held liable for confiscation. When the goods are held liable for confiscation then also the penalty is also not imposable in this case. The case laws cited by the learned DR are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in those cases the duty liability was confirmed against the assessee for contravention of rules. Therefore, when the nature of contravention has to be put to notice to the appellants, the penalty was imposed. But in this case it is alleged that the appellants are not enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
