9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat would still apply notwithstanding the fact that it has been stayed by Hon’ble Apex Court. It has been held that only the operation of the judgment is stayed and not the underlying basis of the judgment itself - the penalty imposed under Rule 25(1)(a) of Central Excise Rules for contravention of Rule 8(3A) is liable to be set aside. Penalty of ₹ 2,000/- imposed for availing the CENVAT Credit twice on the same invoice - Held that:- The amount involved is small but find that the penalty is equally small and commensurate with the violation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - demand upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - APPEAL No. E/30483/2018 - A/30110/2019 - Dated:- 25-1-2019 - Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Rules, 2002 for contravention of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules and imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,000/- for availing the CENVAT Credit twice. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide the impugned order, rejected the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence, this appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that the issue in the present appeal is limited to the penalties imposed under the above two rules. A penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was imposed for violating the Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. This rule itself has been struck down by Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Indsur Global Limited vs. Union of India [2014(12)TMI 585 (Guj.)]. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an oversight and the amount involved is very small and the same has already been paid with interest. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authority and argues that the impugned order needs to be upheld. 5. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. The issue falls in a very narrow compass. As far as the penalty imposed for violation of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is concerned, I find that Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has struck down this Rule and the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has been stayed by Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Space Telelink Limited (supra) held that the ratio of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
