TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equivalent amount as penalty. The First Appellate Authority has recorded that the appellant herein has suppressed and indulged in committing fraud which is unsubstantiated. On the perusal of the show-cause-notice though there is allegation of suppression or fraud committed by the appellant herein for taking cenvat credit, on deeper perusal of the show-cause-notice, I find that the said show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that interest liability of ₹ 27,366/- for improper availment of cenvat credit needs to be upheld - Following decision of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the liability to interest is upheld and penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside - Decided partly in favour of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant reversed the cenvat credit (which is noted in the order-in-original as well as by the first Appellate Authority). Subsequently, show-cause-notice was issued for demand of interest and imposition of penalty which culminated into confirmed demand of interest and imposition of penalty. First Appellate Authority also die not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that interest liability of Rs. 27,366/- for improper availment of cenvat credit needs to be upheld and I do so. To that extent appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. 6. As regards the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority under the provision of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, I find that the said penalty is unwarr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Weaving Mills [2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] directly cover the issue in favour of the assessee. In my view first Appellate Authority cannot justify the imposition of penalty by recording reasoning which were not invoked in the show-cause notice. In view of this the equivalent penalty imposed on the appellant is improper and needs to be set aside. The appeal to the extend it challenges the uphol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
