TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records and hearing both sides, we find that the lower authority denied CENVAT credit of over Rs. 14.7 crores to the appellant under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period September, 2004 to June, 2006. It has also demanded interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act read with Rule 14. There is also a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of additional duty to the extent of over Rs. 31.5 crores and settling the dispute between the assessee and the department. The Settlement Commission also granted immunity to the party from imposition of penalty and prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. According to the present appellant, it is not open to the department to deny the CENVAT credit in question under Rule 9(1)(b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel submits that the above proceedings of the Commissioner at Chennai were not appealed against by the department. In the circumstances, the appellant claims prima facie case against the denial of CENVAT credit as also against the connected penalty. 4. We have heard the learned JCDR as well, who has invited our attention to the provisions of Section 32F of the Central Excise Act and has submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout reference to anything contained in the Settlement Commission s order or in the Chennai Commissioner s order. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, prima facie, the appellant has made out a good case on the strength of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Chennai in favour of the same company and on the same issue in the light of the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
