9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. MYS-EXCUS-000-DIV2-APP-HAB084-2014 dated 16/09/2014. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the appellant herein is manufacturer of DG sets were discharging appropriate Central Excise duty and were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of the Central Excise duty paid on inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd imposed equivalent penalty and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- as one individual. Aggrieved by such an order, appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after bringing out the issues involved in Para 7 and considering the submissions made, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved bu such an order, the appellant is before the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble for more than one reason. 7. Firstly, the impugned order has not considered the provisions of Rule 14 of Cenvat credit 2004 in its right perspective in as much the provisions would come into play only when Cenvat credit has been availed and wrongly utilized or erroneously refunded. A plain reading of the said provisions as it was during the relevant period is as under: "14. Recovery of Cenva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso not disputed. If these two facts are undisputed, the amounts confirmed against the appellant under the provisions under Rule 14 of Cenvat credit 2004 cannot be upheld and needs to be set aside. 9. Secondly, the appellant could have entertained bonafide belief during the period in question i.e. May 2008 to April 2012 that they have to discharge the duty liability based upon transaction value, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
