2015 (12) TMI 601

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been filed by the Appellant against OIA No.SSP/25/SRT-I/2012, dt.21/09/2012 passed by the First Appellate Authority. Shri Willingdon Christian, learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant argued that the issue involved in the present appeal is regarding demand of CENVAT Credit on GTA services availed by the Appellant from the place of removal. It was his case that the Larger Bench in the case of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... id by the Appellant. 2. The learned Advocate also argued that penalty imposed by the Adjudicating authority under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not imposable as the Appellant was under the bonafide belief that CENVAT Credit is admissible on GTA services from the place of removal as per Larger Bench judgment delivered by CESTAT Bangalo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt fairly agreed that the interest on the irregularly taken credit may be payable. In view of the case law of Market Systems Ltd Vs CCE & ST Vadodara-II (supra), passed by the Bench, it is held that the interest on the in-admissible CENVAT Credit taken is payable by the Appellant. 5. So far as the imposition of penalty upon the Appellant under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is concerned, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X