9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance in the contention of the Revenue that it was a mere wrong quotation of Rules. Following Devans Moderen Breweries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2006 (8) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - before imposition of penalty under the relevant Rules, the relevant Acts or omissions are required to be disclosed, so as to enable the notice to submit the reply to the allegation of violation of Rules quoted in the notice - The imposition of penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is bad in law, thus set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Appeal No.189/11 - ORDER NO.FO/A/71068/2013 - Dated:- 20-9-2013 - DR. D. M. MISRA, J. For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with interest. However, he has imposed penalty equivalent to the cenvat credit under Rule 15 (2)of the Central Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved, the Appellant filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who after considering the submissions advanced, rejected the appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the ld. Authorized Signatory, Shri S. K. Sinha, appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that after realizing their mistake of erroneous availment of cenvat credit against four input invoices totaling to Rs.3,06,277/-, they have reversed the cenvat credit on 04.12.2007 along with interest. Further, he has submitted that in the respective input invoices, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) at Para 7, wherein a categorical finding has been recorded by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that mere wrong quoting of Rule,namely, 15 (1) in the show-cause notice instead of Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot vitiate notice or order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. Undisputely, the appellant has availed cenvat credit of Rs.3,06,277/- in October, 2006, which were not admissible to them. However, later on, after realizing their mistake, the said amount was reversed along with interest on 04.12.2007. I also find that in the impugned notice, it has been proposed to impose penalty under Rule 15 (1) of the Central Credit Rules, 2004. The Rule 15 (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the name of the Appellant as buyer/customer of the goods. It is the arguments of the ld. Authorized Representative that since such inputs were used in Air Pollution Control Equipment at the site of the customer, they have availed cenvat credit on the basis of invoices considering the same being used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. Consequently, when it was discovered that the cenvat credit was not admissible, they have reversed the same with interest. I do not find any substance in the allegation that the cenvat credit has been availed by suppressing any facts or by way of mis-declaration. The show-cause notice has proposed a penalty under Rule 15 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where penalty has been impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
