9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 and under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalty under Rule 15A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The facts of the case are that audit was conducted during the period 21-1-2010 to 3-2-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... violation of Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant is not disputing their liability of Service Tax along with interest. They are only contesting the imposition of penalty on the premise that as they have paid the entire Service Tax along with interest on pointing out by the department. Therefore show cause notice was not required to be issued as per Section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994. 3. The co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention of the learned Consultant and submits that if the audit would not have conducted in the premises of the appellant, the truth could not have unearthed. The appellant could have enjoying the short payment of Service Tax and availing inadmissible Cenvat credit. Therefore, the penalties are rightly imposed on the appellants. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions in detail. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice, it is the admission of the appellant that they are not maintaining separate accounts. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit more than 20%. Further I find that if the audit had not been conducted in the premise of the appellant, this fact would not have come in the knowledge of the department, therefore, I hold that on these count, appellant is liable to be penalized. 7.&e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
