TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty was imposed under Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat credit Rules,2004 therefore, the ingredients of suppression, mis-declaration etc., is not relevant for imposition of penalty. Re-consideration of the quantum of penalty, at this stage, would result in review of the order of this Tribunal dated 31.03.2017 a jurisdiction not conferred on this Tribunal - ROM application dismissed. - E/ROM/10361/2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt period, there was no certainty of law, hence larger period is not invokable. He submits that penalty of ₹ 1 Lakh was imposed on the Appellant under Rule 15 (1) of CCR, 2004 which is not liable to be imposed as there was no intention to avail inadmissible credit, but, was taken on the bonafide belief, that it is admissible. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue on the other hand submits that while ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty at this stage would result in review of the order, which is not vested with this Tribunal in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Belapur Vs. RDC Concrete (India) Pvt Ltd - 2011 (270) ELT 625 (S.C.) 4. I find force in the contention of the Ld. AR for the Revenue inasmuch as the appeal was rejected observing that the demand was issued for the normal pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
