TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it under Section 11AB and has imposed penalty of ₹ 2,59,15,371/- on the respondent under Section 11AC. The Commissioner had also allowed Cenvat credit of ₹ 8,67,90,687/- and the penalty imposed under Section 11AC was the difference between the duty demand and the Cenvat credit admissible. It is seen that the appeal filed by the respondent against this order of the Commissioner has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest thereon under Section 11AB and besides this, had imposed penalty of ₹ 2,59,15,371/- on the respondent under Section 11AC. In the same order the Commissioner had also directed that the respondent would be eligible for Cenvat credit of ₹ 8,67,90,687/-. Though in the show cause notice there was a proposal for imposition of penalty on Shri Deepinder Singh, Authorised Signatory of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri Deepinder Singh, Authorised Signatory of the respondent company is also not correct and some penalty should have imposed on him also. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal. 4. However, Shri Rupendra Singh, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that in respect of the appeal again ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11AC. The Commissioner had also allowed Cenvat credit of ₹ 8,67,90,687/- and the penalty imposed under Section 11AC was the difference between the duty demand and the Cenvat credit admissible. It is seen that the appeal filed by the respondent against this order of the Commissioner has been allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment mentioned above and the entire order of the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
