9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been paid by the respondent assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reduced the penalty (50% of duty) imposed under Rules 15(2) and 15(3) to 25% - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/42124 - 42125/2014 - Final Order No. 41712-41713 / 2015 - Dated:- 18-11-2015 - Hon ble Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC (AR) For the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for setting aside the OIO. The department s appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) in OIA No. 10/2014 dated 06.08.2014. The Revenue is in appeal against this order also. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is engaged in the manufacture and export of Power Cord cables, Telecom Cables, Connectors etc. falling under Chapter 85 of the first schedule to the CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest and a penalty of ₹ 12,58,936/- being 50% of the duty was imposed under Rule 15(2) and Rule 15(3) of CVR, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. 4. Ld. AR Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC, appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal and submitted that the period involved during which in-eligible cenvat credit was availed by the assessee pertains to the finan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 2. CST, Bangalore Vs. The Peoples Choice 2014 (36) STR 10 (Kar.) They have also filed photocopies of Section 11A and 11 AC of the CEA, 1944 and drew my attention to Section 11 AC (1) (c). 6. Heard both sides and on going through the records, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has already examined the issue in detail. The provisions of Section 11 AC (1) (c), which reads as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty) imposed under Rules 15(2) and 15(3) to 25%. In view of the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, I hold as under:- (i ) Appeal No. E/42125/2014 I do not find any infirmity in the Order in Appeal No. 56/2014 (M-IV) dated 16.06.2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, I uphold the same and accordingly the Revenue appeal gets rejected. (ii) Appeal No. E/42124/2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
