2017 (7) TMI 382

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case is that appellant have cleared the input as such on payment of duty which was short as compared to Cenvat credit availed thereon. Therefore the demand of differential duty was raised, consequently interest and penalty under Section 11AC was also confirmed. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the Order in original therefore the appellant are before me. 2. Shri. Rajesh Ostwal, Ld. Counsel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Vs [2005(183)ELT 239(SC)] (b)    Vako Seals Pvt Ltd Vs. CCE [2016(344) ELT 482 (Tri. Mum)] (c)     Lawkim Ltd Vs CCE [Tri-Mum)] (d)    CCE & ST, LTU Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (279) ELT 209 (Kar)] (e)    CCE Vs. Strategic  Engg. P. Ltd [2014 (310) ELT 509 (Mad)] 3.   On the other hand, Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 11A and interest was demanded under Section 11 AB. Once the demand of short payment of duty confirmed under Section 11A, interest under Section 11AB will inevitable get invoked therefore I hold that demand of interest is sustainable. As regard penalty, I find that demand is within the normal period and there is no intention of evasion of duty therefore penalty under Section 11 AC is not proper. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X