9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Managing Director has not contravened, penalty on Managing Director are set aside. - Relying on Decision of Indsur Global Ltd. [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal Nos. 51961-51966 of 2014-Ex (SM) - Final Order Nos. 52109-52114/2015-Ex(SM) - Dated:- 29-6-2015 - Ashok Jindal, Member (J),J. For the Appellant : Shri V R Sethi, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms Ranjana Jha, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein the denial of Cenvat Credit has been held confirmed and penalties on main party and Director of main party have also been confirmed. 2. The facts of the case are that the main appellant M/s. Space ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of India [2014(310) ELT 833 (Guj)] has held that provisions of Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rule, 2002 is unconstitutional. Therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be denied. He further submits that there was procedural lapse on the part of the assessee, therefore, the penalty can be imposed under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the main appellant upto maximum of ₹ 5000/- and it is not a case for imposition of penalty on the Director. He further submits that in their own case in Appeal No. 53516 53517/2014 dated 10.6.2015, this Tribunal has already decided the issue holding that appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit of duty paid relying upon the decision of Indsur Global Ltd. and penalty of ₹ 5,000/- was confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision in the appellant s own case decided by this Tribunal on 10.6.15 and cannot comment on that and whatever arguments she has made be considered after going through the appellants submissions. She further submits that the impugned appeals pertains to the period prior to the decision of Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) which is not applicable to the facts of this case. She also submits that Revenue has challenged the decision of Indsur Global Ltd. (supra) before the Hon bleApex Court. Therefore, the said decision cannot be followed as the issue is in jeopardy. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. I have gone through the case law relied upon by the learned AR before me. In all of them, the constitutional value of Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
