9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g The present appeal is filed by the department against the impugned order dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the assessee but reduced the penalty to 25% of the wrongly utilized Cenvat credit. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of MET Coke of various grades falling under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012 which came into force from 01.07.2012 vide which cenvat credit cannot be used for payment of service tax in respect of services where that person is liable to pay service tax as service recipient. 3. The assessee has contravened the provisions of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 and hence a showcause notice dated 08.09.2014 was issued for disallowing the payment of service tax along with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed AR for the revenue. But none has appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of the notice. Since the issue is in narrow compass, I proceed to decide the same on the basis of records available on the file. 7. Learned AR for the revenue has submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) has wrongly and in violation of the Rule has reduced the penalty to 25% of the amount of duty. He further submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n GTA as service recipient and if the assessee violates the Rule, then he is liable for penal action under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. He also submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly come to the conclusion that the assessee on account of financial crisis has paid the duty through cenvat credit and after considering these facts, the penalty under section 78 has been reduced to 25%. 9. Further, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law. Further, I find that there is a clear violation of the rule inspite of the knowledge on the part of the assessee. Therefore, in view of such circumstances, the reduction of penalty to the extent of 25% of the wrongly utilized cenvat credit is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the impugned order reducing the penalty to 25% and restore the order-in-original which imposed the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
