TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that this was not so. In this case, I also take note of the fact that total amount involved is less than ₹ 1.40 lakhs. It was also submitted by learned counsel that credit was taken during construction of factory and therefore, some mistake could have happened. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I consider that in this case, it may not be necessary to impose penalty. - Demand for Cenvat credit with interest is upheld. Penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/934/2008-SM - - - Dated:- 9-3-2015 - B. S. V. Murthy, Member (T),J. For the Appellant : Mr G P Sastry, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr S Teli, AR ORDER Per: B S V Murthy: Appellants had availed Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be maintained. For this proposition, I find that the reliance placed by learned A.R. on decision in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (295) E.L.T. 20 (All.)] is proper. Paragraph 29 of this decision is relevant and is reproduced below: 29. The conditions of availing Cenvat credit include the maintenance of documents and accounts under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and which include under sub-rule (i) (a), the invoices used by a manufacturer for clearance of (i) inputs for or, the capital goods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer, (ii) inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. (supra), penalty equal to the duty was sustained. In this case, even though suppression / mis-declaration had involved, penalty has been limited to only 25% and this is reasonable and should be sustained. 6. I have considered the submissions. There is a difference between Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. case and the present case. In the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. (supra) , it was the claim of the appellants that they had maintained proper records but on verification it was found that this was not so. In this case, I also take note of the fact that total amount involved is less than ₹ 1.40 lakhs. It was also submitted by learned counsel that credit was taken during construction of factory and therefore, some mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
