9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals) upheld demand of duty for the extended period of limitation. Then the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), that the respondent is not part of fraud is contrary and mis-conceived, in so far, as the demand of Cenvat Credit for the extended period would be invalid. But, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for the extended period and set aside penalty under Section 11AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 was issued proposing demand/recovery of cenvat credit of ₹ 18,18,563/- alongwith interest and penalty on the respondent and imposition of penalty on Shri Devendra A Garuda, Partner of the respondent. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed that the demand of cenvat credit of ₹ 18,18,563/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty under Rule 13(2) of Cenvat Credit Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to set aside penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. He relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors - 2008(231)ELT.3(SC). 4. After hearing the Ld Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, the relevant portion of the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the appellants are more appropriately liable for penalty under Rule 13(1) of the cenvat Credit rules, 2002 clearly provide for penalty where credit is taken without reasonable steps to ensure that inputs are duty paid. 5. Show Cause Notice dtd 3.7.2007 was issued proposing demand of Cenvat Credit for the period from October 2003 to May 2004 invoking proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
