9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial in the assessable value of the final product amounting to ₹ 17,291/- was paid along with interest of ₹ 3,113/- on 22/01/2007. CENVAT credit - returned goods - Held that: - the credit availed on the finished goods returned under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has been converted into scrap and ₹ 12,217/- was paid along with interest of ₹ 2,892/- on 22/01/2007. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/107/2008-DB - Final Order No. 22193/2017 - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and appropriated the amounts with respect to duty and interest already paid by the assessee. Further a penalty of ₹ 7,76,724/- under Section 11AC was imposed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original imposing the penalty, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) but the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by ignoring the statutory provision as well as binding judicial precedent on the same issue. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing decisions:- i. Birla Corporation Vs. CCE, Kolkata-III [2014(307) ELT 924 (Tri. Kol.)] ii. Commissioner Vs. Anil Polymers Pvt. Ltd. [2009(237) ELT 358 (Tri.)] 4.3. He also submitted that the goods have been returned back after rework and the appellant has reversed the credit along with interest from the date of availment till the date of reversal of the credit availed in terms of Rule 16. Further the appellant being a LTU, availment of small portion of excess / wrong credit cannot be considered as availed with intention to evade duty and no penalty is imposable especially when the said amount is reflected in all the statutory records maintained by the appellant. In support of this submission, he relied upon the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
