9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal. 2. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.5,04,829/- against the appellants under the proviso to Section 11A(l) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This demand was on the ground of wrong ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty to 25% of the duty amount and sustained the rest of the decision of the lower authority. The present appeal is against the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I note that the CENVAT credit in question pertained to the period June, 2004 to March, 2005. The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable to the case. Though th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng penalty on the appellants. The question which now arises for consideration is whether any penalty was liable to be imposed on the party under the above provision on the facts of this case. The material fact is that the entire demand raised by the original authority had been honoured by the assessee prior to issuance of the show-cause notice and that the interest demanded under Section 11AB of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e view taken by the lower authorities on the penalty issue. Admittedly, the substantive demand is under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, the demand of, interest is under Section 11AB of the Act and the penalty is in terms of Section 11AC of the Act vide sub-rule 2 of Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In such circumstances, the case is not distinguishable from one in which the asscsse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
