TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1539X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce should not have been issued the penalty could not have been imposed. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that penalty commensurate to the amount of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 9,90,630/- is not sustainable therefore the same is set aside. However, I agree with the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that total demand of ₹ 11,32,147/- sustainable accordingly appellant is directed pay difference Cenvat amounting to ₹ 1,41,517/- alongwith interest and also penalty of equal amount of ₹ 1,41,517 - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. E/89237/13-MUM - - - Dated:- 8-5-2015 - Ramesh Nair, Member (J), J. For the Appellant : Shri Makrand Joshi, Adv For the Respondent : Shri V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of ₹ 3,64,081/- paid on 5/8/2011 was appropriated, penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 11,32,147/- was imposed under Section 11AC. Aggrieved by the adjudication order appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed therefore appellant is before me. 2. Shri. Makrand Joshi, Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that while pointing out by Central Excise audit team regarding non-availability of Cenvat Credit on written off value of inputs, the audit officers have gone through balance sheet for the period 2007-08, 2008-09 also which is evident from the audit report wherein same discrepancy related to this period was pointed out. He submits that it is not only appellant but also the audit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that at the first occasion audit was conducted, this discrepancy was raised by the audit officer, the appellant should have reversed Cenvat Credit for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 also as they are aware about written off value of inputs during the said period also therefore appellant knowingly about written of value in their books of account have neither reversed the same nor intimated to the department therefore it is clear case of suppression of facts. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides. 5. I find that appellant has paid amount of ₹ 9,90,630/- alongwith interest as per their calculation immediately after pointed out by CERA audit team and intim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
