9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2001/2002/Rule 57AD(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with interest is upheld, the penalty of Rs. 59,73,020/- imposed on the appellant is set aside. As regard, the penalty of Rs. 1348/- for clearance of ODS without payment of duty, the same is not disputed and is upheld - Following decision of CCE and ST LTU, Bangalore v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 512 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and CCE, Allahabad v. JHV Sugar Corporation Ltd. [2009 (10) TMI 798 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - E/473/2005 - A/717/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 7-6-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri I. Baig, Authorized Representative (DR) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort paid duty of Rs. 1348/- in respect of ODS along with interest and also for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 28-9-2004 by which the demand of Rs. 59,73,020/- was confirmed under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 along with interest and duty demand of Rs. 1348/- was confirmed along with interest under Section 11A(2) and penalty of equal amount was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 13 ibid. The appellant, however, prior to adjudication had paid the disputed amounts of Rs. 59,73,020/- and Rs. 1348/-. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate, the Learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules 2001/2002/Rule 57AD(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 along with interest on the same, penalty would also be attracted, that the penalty would attracted as the appellant during the period of dispute had not declared the manufacture of exempted final product (Rectified Spirit) in the ER-1 returns filed by them, that manufacture and clearance of rectified spirit by the appellant using the Cenvat credit availed molasses was detected only on the scrutiny of their private records and, therefore, penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules had been correctly imposed. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the record. 6. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that during period fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
