9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Kriti Industries (I) Ltd. [2017 (5) TMI 603 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)]. Accordingly, it was held that for the purpose of payment of 8% the same is not liable to be deducted from the sale price of the exempted goods - demand upheld. Penalty - Held that: - there is absolutely no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. The issue involved is o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. However, against the said decision, the appellant have filed appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which has been admitted and pending as reported in CCE Vs. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. - 2015 (320) ELT A188 . Therefore, he prayed to keep this matter in abeyance. He fairly submits that the issue otherwise decided by the Larger Bench against the appellant in the case of Kriti Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also referred to the Larger Bench and the matter was decided in Kriti Industries (I) Ltd. (supra). Taking all these facts, malafide intention on the part of the appellant is not established. Therefore penalty under Rule 13 was wrongly imposed. He also took support from the decision of their own case in 2007 (211) ELT 481. In the said judgment also, the Tribunal set aside the penalty. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eover, the issue stands settled by the Larger Bench. Therefore, there is no reason to keep the matter in abeyance. In view of the above position, the demand of cenvat credit confirmed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is maintained along with interest. As regards penalty, we do agree with the submission of the ld. Counsel that firstly, the demand is within the norm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
