2012 (5) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kar, Supdt (A.R.) ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal Vide impugned order, the adjudicating authority disallowed the wrongly availed credit of ₹ 1,41,226/- with interest and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of man-made fabrics falling under Chapter Sub-Heading 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as issued to them and the same was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn upheld the impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants are before me. 3. Shri Prakash Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that as per the Notification No. 30/2004 dated 9.7 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dit, therefore they are liable to pay the duty confirmed as per the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and examined the records. 6. On examination of the records, I find that the appellant has taken the credit wrongly on two occasions in August, 2003 and in December, 2003. I have also examined the RG 23A Part II which shows that excess balance in their CENVAT account but they have availed w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X