9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act is missing in the present case - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2140/2012-SM - 20942/2017 - Dated:- 27-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. B.G.Chinananda URS, CA For the Appellant Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 35 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are also availing the benefit of CENVAT credit fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and evidence on record and without following the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the issue of demand of interest on the unutilized portion of credit which was reversed and no notice was issued to appropriate such credit and interest is not permissible in law. He relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of J.K. Tyre and Industries Ltd. Vs. ACCE reported in 2016 (340) ELT 193 . He further submitted that the notice for demand of interest and also imposition of mandatory penalty is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the decisions cited by the appellant, I find that the appellant availed the input credit wrongly twice and when it was pointed, the same was reversed with interest of ₹ 82,256/- which was paid on 19.2.2008 and the show-cause notice was only issued to demand the balance amount of interest of ₹ 80,206/- and for imposing penalty under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC of the Act. Further, I also find that the balance amount was deposited by the appellant on the direction of the CESTAT. Further, I also find that in the show-cause notice, the Revenue has not alleged any suppression or fraud or willful misstatement with intention to avail irregular credit, and; as and when it was pointed out, the same was reversed. Since there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
