9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts was disclosed to the department. Moreover, the SCN was issued for the period of one year - In the Tribunal’s order in the appellants own case [2014 (3) TMI 707 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the identical case was decided wherein the penalty imposed by the lower authority was completely waived - I do not find any suppression of facts on the part of the appellants. Therefore, the penalty imposed u/r 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted goods. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority denied the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 18,34,974/- on the inputs used exclusively the exempted goods. In addition, he ordered for interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the order-in-original dated 27/10/2006, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Cenvat Credit Rules. He submits that there is no mention about the sub-rule of Rule 15 either in the show-cause notice or in the order-in-original. However, since the equal amount of penalty was imposed, it might be covered under sub-rule (2) of Rule15. In this regard he submits that at the time of taking credit, the appellant has made a detailed representation to the department vide their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the appellant undisputedly informed the department in writing vide letters referred by the learned Counsel regarding their availment of credit on inputs used exclusively in the exempted goods. In their representation, the appellant referred the judgements which was in favour of the assessee. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
