2015 (12) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e inasmuch, that against the very same Order-in-Original the assessee respondent was in appeal before the Bench and the Bench vide its final order [2015 (4) TMI 395 - CESTAT MUMBAI], has upheld the ineligibility to avail Cenvat credit within the period of limitation and set aside the demands raised beyond the period of limitation. It is also seen that the Bench had set aside the penalties imposed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd both sides and perused the record. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the Adjudicating Authority has not confiscated the capital goods on which Cenvat credit was improperly availed. 4. It is the case of the Revenue that the Adjudicating Authority having confirmed the demand holding that the res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no dispute that the capital goods in which the Cenvat credit were availed were duty paid by the manufacturer. The respondent assessee had availed Cenvat credit of the duty paid by the manufacturer. We also find the provisions of Rule 15 on which reliance has been placed is also not applicable inasmuch, that against the very same Order-in-Original the assessee respondent was in appeal before the B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X