2015 (1) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owhere exhibits that Cenvat credit irregularly taken was utilised. Accordingly, it can be only held that credit was availed for which levy of interest is justified and there shall be no interference to the levy of interest by the Tribunal. Interest demand is thus confirmed. Insofar as the penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004 is concerned, learned adjudicating authority imposed penalty of ͅ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... turn was belatedly filed to rectify mistake done in original return. 100% capital goods credit was taken in original return. But that was reduced to 50% filing revised return. Since revised return was belated, credit was held to be taken irregularly under the law. For such purpose interest of ₹ 1,87,005/- has been demanded and penalty of ₹ 62,04,375/- has been imposed under Rule 15(1) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... terest demand is thus confirmed. 5. Insofar as the penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR, 2004 is concerned, learned adjudicating authority imposed penalty of ₹ 62,04,375/- without following the doctrine of proportionality. Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 does not necessarily require levy of penalty to the extent of Cenvat credit disputed. Penalty is mandate of law to discourage recurrence of default in f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X