TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken the Cenvat credit wrongly or in contravention of any provisions of the said Rules. Admittedly, the said sub-rule is not applicable inasmuch as the dispute does not relate to taking of wrong Cenvat credit. Sub-rule (2) of the said Rule relates to the wrong utilisation of the Cenvat credit taken, on account of fraud, wilful statement, collusion or suppression of facts, etc. Admittedly, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly in favour of assessee. - E/860/2011-EX(SM) - Final Order No. A/50181/2014-SM(BR) - Dated:- 20-1-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) Shri Rajkumar, Consultant, for the Appellant. Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots. Their factory was visited by the officers on 4-12-2008, who conducted various checks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich do not provide for any such reduction. Hence, the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides, I find that the penalty of ₹ 3,52,899/- stands imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005 by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise without specifying any sub-rule of the said Rule. Even, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that penalty stands imposed under Rule 15 with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of sub-rule (2) would apply. The said sub-rule provides imposition of penalty in terms of provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11AC of the Act provides if the penalty imposed is deposited within a period of 30 days to the extent of 25%, the penalty shall stand reduced to that extent. Inasmuch as in the present case, the appellant has admittedly deposited the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
