9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri S.R. Dixit, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this case the appellants are engaged in manufacturing of Woolen Fabrics, Man made Fabrics, Woolen Blankets etc. They had opted for exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-Central Excise and they found that in view of the availment they were not eligible for credit of Service tax amounting to Rs. 1,3,53,337/- during the period from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view the Board Circular on the subject, appellant is liable to pay interest. He also submits that its utilization or non utilization does not make any difference. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M Baja) Auto Limited v. CCE, Aurangabad - [2009(248) E.L.T. 540 = 2009-TIOL-1223-CESTAT-MUM]. However, I find that in that case there is no clear observation that credit was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso submitted that penalty is imposable as the credit taken was wrong. I do not find any justification for imposition of penalty in this case in view of fact that it was the appellants who found that they had taken the credit wrongly and they rectified the mistake themselves and apparently it was only a mistake on their part and hence, no penalty in these circumstance is leviable. In view of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
