2015 (10) TMI 2218

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellants in the matter of availment of credit of duty and therefore, the said provisions of rule 15 of the Cenvat credit rules, 2004 are not invocable in this case for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Taking note of the same the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed. This being the facts the appellants do have a strong case of limitation in their favour. On such g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the period April 2006 to March 2007 on various input services. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants challenged the impugned order both on limitation as well as on merits. The credit on insurance service (insurance of plant, machinery and finished goods except the), vehicle maintenance service, courier service and cell phone(mobile) services were denied. The impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has found that the issue involved is more in the nature of interpretation of law, and the facts placed on record do not suggest any malafide intention on the part of the appellants in the matter of availment of credit of duty and therefore, the said provisions of rule 15 of the Cenvat credit rules, 2004 are not invocable in this case for the purpose .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X