9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance without applying the conversion formula prescribed in Rule 3(7)(a) - The appellant in this case had calculated the admissible Cenvat credit by applying the prescribed formula but according to the department their method of calculation is incorrect - when in respect of another period, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held there was no suppression, Penalty can not be imposed - Decided in favor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter issuance of show cause notices, the original adjudicating authority by two separate orders confirmed the total Cenvat credit demand of Rs.2,35,510/-. Amount of Rs.41,388/- is covered by first show cause notice and amount of Rs.1,91,122/- is covered by the second show cause notice. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), against both these orders, the Commissioner (Appeals), by a common order uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% EOU; that dispute is only about method of calculation; that since dispute about the issue pertaining to interpretation of rule, imposition of equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat credit Rules read with 11 AC is not called for that in this regard, he relies upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of Muscat Polymers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot reported in [2009 (243) ELT 740 (Tri-Ahmd)] whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by applying the prescribed formula but according to the department their method of calculation is incorrect. In view of this, I am of the view that upholding the imposition of equal amount of penalty of Rs.44,388/- in respect of period from 1.4.07 to 31.3.2008 is not called for. More so, when in respect of another period, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held there was no suppression. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
