9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that during the checking of ER-1 returns for the period March,2005 to June, 2005, it was noticed that the appellant was clearing their goods under Notification No.30/04-CE dated 9.7.2004 and no duty was paid. All the goods were of exempted category, whether it was clearance for home ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal against the said order. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) the amount already paid had been appropriated and interest for the intervening period was demanded and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that although the appellant has taken credit on capital goods, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant. 4. On the other hand, learned AR submitted that as the appellant was not manufacturing any dutiable goods, therefore, as per Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is not entitled to avail credit on capital goods. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that as per Notification No.30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it wrongly and the same has not been utilized, which is not disputed by the Revenue, in that circumstance, relying on the decision of the Bill Forge Ltd. (supra), we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay interest. 9. We further find that the malafide intention is missing in that circumstance, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant. 10. With these terms, we pass the following orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
