Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 403 - CESTAT, BANGALOREPenalty - The facts of the case are that the appellants had taken credit in their Cenvat account to the tune of Rs. 98,77,446/- as duty paid on capital goods in June, 2007. The assessee has challenged the impugned order on various grounds. The demand of interest is assailed on the ground that the same is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE, Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., [2007 (214) E.L.T. 173 (P & H)] upheld by the Apex Court as reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. A 50, The penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CCR is challenged on the ground that the said provisions applied to cases where an assessee had taken irregular credit by suppression of facts, fraud etc. Held that- no reliable finding that irregular credit availed with intention to evade payment of duty. Penalty imposed is not sustainable. Credit wrongly taken but not utilized. Demand of interest not sustainable.
|