2018 (1) TMI 701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ipathi, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Appellant Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Proxy Counsel), for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has set aside the penalties of Rs. 12,64,665/- under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but has upheld penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 15(1) of the Cenv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issue involved was a bona-fide issue and the appellant could have been under a bona-fide belief that such credit was available to them even prior to the date on which they had availed the same. There is no evidence produced by the Revenue that said availment was with any mala-fide intention. As soon as, the said wrong taking of credit was pointed out to the appellant they reversed the same and ar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X