2017 (3) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urthermore, Section 11AC (2) itself clarifies that in case the determination of the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority undergoes a change at the appellate level where the concerned authority might reduce or grant complete relief that order would prevail for the purpose of determination of any amount or penalty u/s 11 AC - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CEAC 14/2016 & C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... confirmed was ₹ 15,54,266/-. So far as the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC went, the Commissioner noticed the judgment of the CESTAT in M/s Weldon Cello Plast Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-IV (2013) 287 ELT 141. The amount of penalty too was reduced in the circumstances. 2. The Revenue was aggrieved and approached the CESTAT. At that stage of hearing, the CEST .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he penalty was leviable. 4. At the outset, this Court notices that the reasoning of the CESTAT is based upon declaration in Indsur Global (supra) that provisions of Rule 8(3A) that had prevented the adjustment of cenvat credit, in certain circumstances, was no longer a barrier. This meant that with respect to the payments towards duty or any other amounts, cenvat credit was available. Further .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X