TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sted earlier in respect of Rule 14 of the said Rules, it is needless to say that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department is erroneous, whereas the argument advanced on the side of the respondent is really having merit and the substantial questions of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are not having substance - Decided against Revenue. - C.M.A (MD) No. 62/2010 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2014 - A. Selvam And G. Chockalingam,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. B Vijay Karthikeyan For the Respondent : Mr Joseph Prabhakar, Advocate ORDER The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been directed against the Final Order passed in Final Order No. 808 of 2009, dated 03.07.2009 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es specifically state that where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest shall be recovered from the manufacturer? 2. Whether penalty is imposable or not on the manufacturer in terms of Rule 13 of erstwhile CCE, 2002 and Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 when the CENVAT credit has been taken wrongly, when the said rules specifically state that if any person, takes CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods, wrongly or contravenes any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any input or capital goods, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and such person, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the excisable goods in respect of whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of facts available in that case has given a finding to the effect that assessee therein is liable to pay interest as well as penalty. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the decision reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 184 (SC) (Union of India) Vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited) has been elaborately dealt with in the decision reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 204 (Karnataka) (Commissioner of Central Excise S.T Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Private Limited) 10. In fact, this Court has perused the entire decision reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 204 (Karnataka) (Commissioner of Central Excise S.T Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Private Limited) and ultimately found that mere taken of CENVAT credit facilities is not at a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
