9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate) For the Petitioner : Mr. M.R. Sharma, DR ORDER PER S K MOHANTY: The brief facts of the case are that during the disputed period, the appellant had availed cenvat credit on angles, beams, Purlin & Roof Sheeting, Wall Panel etc., treating the same as input for manufacture of capital goods i.e. Steel Structural of Pre Fabricated Steel Building inside the factory premises. Taking of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of UOI vs Ind Swift Laboratories Ltd. reported in 2011 (265) ELT 3 (SC). Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 3. I find that the irregularly availed cenvat credit was reversed by the appellant upon detection of mistake by the Audit Wing of the Central Excise Department and before issuance of the SCN. It is an ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9) ELT 209 (Kar.) has held that the credit taken if not utilized for payment of Central Excise duty, the same bears the character of a mere book entry and the interest liability cannot be confirmed against the assessee. In the above cited judgment, the Honble Court further held that the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ind Swift Laboratories (supra) has been delivered in the entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of sub-rule (6), inserted subsequently, will not have any application for imposition of penalty. Further, the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 have not been invoked in the SCN for imposition of penalty. Thus, the penalty confirmed by both the authorities below is outside the scope and purview of SCN. Hence, the impugned order confirming the penalty on the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
