TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 38,23,069/-, which has been dropped by the adjudicating authority. Hence the belaboured effort of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8 and 9 to arrive at a finding that the penalty was proposed on the appellants in relation to non-receipt of goods within 180 days as well is clearly not supported by the facts enumerated in the SCN. Considering the conduct of the appellants who reversed the Cenvat Credit on the spot on 23.06.2004 and paid the interest long before the issue of the show cause notice and the absence of any ground in the show cause notice for the penalty on the appellant in relation to non-receipt of goods within 180 days, the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly unsustainable and is therefore, set aside. Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanding duty of ₹ 38,23,069/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act by applying extended period of limitation. It was also proposed to appropriate the Cenvat Credit reversed by the appellant and the interest already paid by them. Besides, penalties under Rule 13 read with Section 11AC was proposed on the appellants and penalties under Rule 13 were proposed on the two Directors Mr. Rajiv Sethi and Sh. Sanjiv Sethi. The matter underwent adjudication wherein the main demand of ₹ 38,23,069/- was dropped and the demand of ₹ 2,61,373/- was confirmed along with interest and the amounts already paid were appropriated. The adjudicating authority also imposed the penalty of ₹ 2,61,373/- on the appellant No. 1 and ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner (Appeals) has brought out in Para 9 of his order that penalties proposed cover both the issues. 5. Heard the parties and perused the record. 6. I find that the proceedings in this case were started on the question of whether Cenvat Credit of ₹ 38,23,069/- had been wrongly availed by the appellants as process carried out by the appellants did not appear to amount to manufacture. The entire show cause notice is on this question and the demand of ₹ 38,23,069/- and the allegation of suppression/misstatement etc. and justification for penalty on the appellant No. 1,2 3 in Paras 10-17 of the show cause notice are only in relation to this question. The show cause notice does not anywhere propose the imposition of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
