9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no justification for imposing penalty and therefore the impugned order to the extent of imposing penalty is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/999/2011-SM - Final Order No. 20065 / 2017 - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Venkatesan K., Authorized Rep. For the Appellant Shri J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.12.2010 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. Briefly the facts of the case are that during investigation by the Central Excise audit, it was observed that appellants have availed the cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Shri Venkatesan, Manager of the appellant appeared and submitted that they have wrongly availed the cenvat credit on outward transportation but during the audit, it was noticed that input credit was availed on invoices of outward transportation and on being pointed out by the audit team, the appellants have reversed the entire cenvat credit. The said reversal was made before the issue of show-cause notice and the credit was availed before 01.04.2008. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment in the case of CCE ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. reported in [2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.)]. He further submitted that the appellants have also paid the interest of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the audit team, they reversed the said amount of ₹ 5,13,377/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Seven only) and the said reversal was made before the issue of show-cause notice. He also submitted that the inputs were received back within the stipulated time of 180 days as per the Excise Law and in support of this they relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Indore Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. Further the interest of ₹ 9,508/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eight only) was paid as per the CESTAT directions on 27.03.2012 and prayed for setting aside the penalty. As far as fourth issue relates to amortization of free supply die cost into the cost of value of the product, he submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
