TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing CENVAT credit to warrant invoking the ingredients of section 11AC is not tenable - imposition of penalty u/r 15(2) of CCR, 2004 is not appropriate - penalty set aside - appeal allowed in part. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a mandated requirement under section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 and hence admissible as input service for manufacture of final products. He has also rendered a finding that recovery o f ₹ 12,04,479/- from their employees during the relevant period would not amount to procurement of service to that extent by the appellant leading to disallowance of credit of ₹ 70,104/-. The premise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the context of recovery of a presumptive levy of 8% on exempt goods is equally applicable on stock transfer. Revenue relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010 (263) ELT 369 (Bom)]. On perusal of the decision cited by the Learned Authorised Representative in re Ultratech Cement Ltd "39. The Larger Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reversed." The decision supra having been rendered in October 2010 to render finality to what was, till then, governed by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Central Excise v. GTC Industries Ltd [2008 (12) STR 468 (T-LB)] allegation of mala fide on the part of the assessee in availing CENVAT credit to warrant invoking the ingredients of section 11AC is not tenable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|