9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering [2014 (11) TMI 89 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that mere taking itself would not compel the assessee to pay interest as well as penalty - the appellant is not liable to pay interest or penalty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/181/2012 - Final Order No. 41114/2018 - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was reversed immediately, they informed that the payment of interest is not applicable for the reason that they continue to retain balance over and above the impugned wrongly availed credit. Hence show cause notice was issued proposing to demand interest of ₹ 10,86,324/- and for penalty in terms of Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Strategic Engineering reported in 2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad.). He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (44) STR 136 (Tri. Hyd.). 3. The ld. AR Shri A. Cletus appearing for the department reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven befitting answer to all doubts existed earlier. Since, the subsequent amendment has cleared all doubts existed earlier in respect of Rule 14 of the said Rules, it is needless to say that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department is erroneous, whereas the argument advanced on the side of the respondent is really having merit and the substantial question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
