9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention on the part of the appellants - the appellants are separately challenging the levy - adjudication levies in the present case have already been discharged along with interest - In view of these factors penalties set aside. - E/488/2007 - 134/2009 - Dated:- 24-2-2009 - Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (Technical) and Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) (Final Order No. 134/2009 dt. 24.2.2009 certified on 27.2.2009 in Appeal No. E/488/2007) Shri K.K. Varier, Consultant for Appellant. Smt. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR for Respondent. Per T.K. Jayaraman: This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.175/2007 dated 30.03.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. 2. We heard b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided and only the receiver of the service is entitled to avail the credit of Service Tax. As regards the outward transportation, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants cannot take credit of the tax paid on outward transportation inasmuch as the transportation charges and incidence of tax is borne by someone else. Further, he held that the outward transportation is not an input service for the appellants and actually only the receiver is entitled for the credit. Holding such a view, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Original Authority. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and have come before this Tribunal for relief. 4. Shri K.K. Varier, the learned Consu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also stated that the provisions of Rule 15 of the CEN VAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been wrongly invoked in the present case. The said Rule applies only when there is wanton violation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which is clear from the plain reading of language of Rule 15. Therefore, it was submitted that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority had wrongly imposed penalties of Rs. 6,43,668/-. Further, under sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the CEN VAT Credit Rules, 2004 the maximum penalty provided is Rs.10,000/- which has been reduced to Rs.2,000/- w.e.f. 01.03.2007 whereas the Adjudicating Authority has imposed equal amount as penalty amounting to Rs. 6,43,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
