9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avor of appellant. - E/20067/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21638/2018 - Dated:- 16-10-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Girish K., Cost Accountant For the Appellant Mr. K.T. Pakshirajan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG 1.1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants M/s. S.K. Steel Tech, holders of Central Excise Registration Certificate No. ALSPK1828KXM002 are engaged in the manufacture of MS Billets falling under Chapter Heading 72071920 of the Schedule to the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of the Central Excise Act and imposed penalty of ₹ 1,90,224/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Four only) under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944 and further appropriated the amount of ₹ 1,90,224/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Four only) towards demand and ₹ 36,096/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand and Ninety Six only) towards interest already paid by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed said appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner rejected the appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out by the audit and thereafter the appellant reversed the excess cenvat credit along with interest. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that appellant had newly started the factory and it was their first audit which pointed out that the appellant had availed excess credit of ₹ 1,90,224/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Four only). On being pointed out, the appellant reversed the excess credit along with interest of ₹ 36,096/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand and Ninety Six only) but did not reverse the penalty amounting to ₹ 24,235/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
