2012 (11) TMI 638

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the show cause notice nor the order-in-original has brought any cogent evidence that the appellant knowingly manufactured goods not fit for consumption - There is no testing of goods done at any stage. When the intention to cause evasion remained absent, the belated show cause notice dated 25-1-2010, in absence of any mala fide shall not bring the appellant to the fold of law - Neither any cogent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1A of Central Excise Act, 1944. To this proposition he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. H.M.M. Ltd. - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). 3. Learned DR on the other hand says that when the goods came back not being consumable, the appellant is bound to reverse the Cenvat credit availed earlier on manufacture of such returned goods. Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llant to the fold of law. It is mere audit advice that gave rise to the Show Cause Notice. Neither any cogent evidence nor suppression brought on record to penalize the appellant. In absence of wilful breach of law, the penalty proceedings became unsustainable. In the result, both stay application and appeal are allowed confirming reversal of Cenvat credit warranted under law. (Pronounced in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X