9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition of restricting the CENVAT credit to 20% as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Held that:- no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal against the impugned order of the CESTAT which has concurred with the finding of both the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). As far as the penalty is concerned, the minimum penalty, as manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to show cause why an amount of ₹ 63,202 Central Value Added Tax ('CENVAT') credit wrongly taken should not be disallowed and recovered in terms of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest and why penalty should not be imposed. The above show cause notice was issued on scrutiny of the returns filed by the Assessee in Form ST-3 in which, according to the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and imposed a penalty of the same amount at the rate of ₹ 100 per day for every day during which such failure continued. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who by an order dated 19th August 2012 dismissed it on the ground of failure by the Appellant to seek waiver of pre-deposit an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal of the Assessee and also affirmed the penalty. 7. The Assessee filed an application seeking rectification of the above order on the ground that the CESTAT had not discussed the merits of the case. This application was dismissed by the CESTAT by the second impugned order dated 28th July 2015. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that no substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
