2017 (2) TMI 1136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l against the impugned order demanding interest and imposing penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle parts during the period April, 2006 to March, 2008. The appellant cleared certain inputs as such and at the time of removal of such inputs. As such, the appellant was required to reverse cenvat credit availed on the said goods in term .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is his submission that in the show cause notice there was not proposal for invoking provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, the said provisions cannot be invoked at the adjudication stage. He further submits that the Rule 3(5) of the CCR is not applicable for recovery of interest. 4. He further submits that in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of L.G. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Considering the facts that on realisation that the appellant has wrongly availed the credit of SAD has reversed the same. Later on, the show cause notice was issued. In that circumstances, mala-fide intention of the appellants are missing, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X