2022 (12) TMI 522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e) for the Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR The limited issue to be decided in the present case is that whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Rule 15(2) or the charge that appellant have availed 100% credit instead of 50% and remaining 50% to be availed in the next Financial year in respect of capital goods. The appellant, an pointed out by the department, reversed the 50 % credit along .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s: * Sunflag Filaments Ltd.- 2009 (245) ELT. 209 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Guardian Plasticote Ltd.- 2009(241) ELT. 149 (Tri.- Ahmd.) * R.A.S.Poly Tex Pvt. Ltd.- 2009 (247) ELT. 699(Tri.- Del.) * Indo-nippon Chemicals co. Ltd.- 2009(233) ELT. 141(Tri.-Ahmd. * Omkar Steel Tubes (p) Ltd.-2008 (221) ELT. 200 (P & H) * Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.- 2005 (189) ELT. 257 (S.C) 3. On the other hand Shri Ra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t the case should have been concluded, on the basis of appellant's reversal of excess credit of 50% along with payment of interest thereon which could have resulted into non issuance of SCN and consequently no penalty should have been imposed. Therefore, in this fact since there is no mala fide on the part of the appellant, the case is clearly covered by Section 11A(2B). 5. Accordingly, the penal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X