2017 (9) TMI 1117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is in appeal against the impugned order praying for reduction of penalty imposed on him under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of clearance of distribution boards. The appellant is also availing Cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs and capital goods used in manufacture of the final product. The appellant su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant submits that in terms of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the maximum limit is prescribed which is equivalent to duty but it is not prescribed for minimum penalty to be imposed on the appellant. In that circumstances, penalty imposed on the appellant is highly excessive and same may be required to be reduced as per the order of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. (supra) has observed as under: 11. It is not necessary to multiply decisions which are available in plenty. We wind up this discussion holding that the amount mentioned in Rule 173Q(1) of the 1944 Rules or Rule 25(1) of the 2002 Rules is the maximum, and not the minimum. The amount shall not exceed the duty determined; if it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X