9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing Baba Viswakarma Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Ghaziabad [2012 (9) TMI 814 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Department has not taken the initiative to make use of the provisions regarding confiscation since no seizure has been effected - So the only consequence will be penalty - there is no case for demanding the duty paid through Cenvat credit to be paid again through cash/PLA - there is no case fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... showing the payment towards their Hyderabad unit. Subsequently, the said amount had been paid by them in cash. In the meantime, from March 2010 to 26th August, 2010 they have cleared finished goods by utilizing their Cenvat Credit which the Department as contrary to Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Ld. Consultant has submitted that this Tribunal has been allowing stay application by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the said judgment is not applicable to the present case as they had discharged the duty for the default period subsequently. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that this Tribunal following the ratio of the judgment in the case of Baba Viswakarma Engg. Co. (P) Ltd. (cited supra), has consistently taken a view in waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
