TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating authority under the provisions of Rule 25(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 may not arise, as the said provisions would indicate that the penalty under Rule 25(1)(a) can be imposed only if the manufacturer removes any excisable goods in contravention of any of the provisions of this rule. It is on record that the appellant had discharged the Central Excise duty on the inputs removed as such and that too more than the actual duty. Hence, the provisions of Rule 25(1)(a) of Central Excise Rules do not prima facie get attracted. - Stay granted towards penalty. Regarding penalty under Rule 15 - Held that:- the said issue was not argued before the Hon’ble High Court and framed as question of law and we find that during the relev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Final Order No. A/1170/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 14.5.2007. The said decision of the Tribunal was not accepted by the Revenue and an appeal was filed before the Hon ble High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1744 of 2007. The Hon ble High Court has reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held that the appellant cannot pay excess amount on the inputs as duty and holding so, they directed the appellant to pay the entire amount paid in excess through PLA and also upheld the penalties imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2.2 Following the said order, for the subsequent period i.e. in July, 2006 to December, 2011 various show-cause notices were adjudicated by the adjudicating authority and has confirmed the demand of excess amount paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004. Hence, there is no question of granting any waiver of the said penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that the amount which is required to be paid in cash may be paid by the appellant and the Bench should direct the appellant to pre-deposit some amount of interest in order to hear and dispose of the appeal. 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides. 5.1 At the outset, we find that differential amount of Rs.1,68,99,531/- which has been paid by the appellant by utilizing CENVAT Credit of RG-23A / CENVAT account, needs to be paid by them in cash, as Hon ble High Court has reversed our view on this point. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.1,68,99,531/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of which any contravention has been committed, or ten thousand rupees, whichever is greater. (2) . (3) . (4) .. It can be seen from the above reproduced rule that question of utilization of CENVAT Credit during the period in question was not to be considered for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5.4 Learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) led his entire argument for the pre-deposit of the amount of penalty under this rule on the basis of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the appellant s own case. On detail consideration of the said judgement, we find that paragraphs 16 and 17 are more relevant, wherein their Lord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
