TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... credit - the appellant is liable to pay the interest on wrongly availed credit from the date of taking credit till the reversal thereof. Penalty - Held that: - the appellant has no malafide intention. The wrong credit availment twice on the same invoice is due to inadvertence. This cannot be taken as intention to evade duty - More over the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and paying the huge revenue therefore it cannot be expected from the appellant that they had any malafide intention to avail wrong credit - penalty not warranted. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/944/2008 - Order No. A/86420/2018 - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - Hon ble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Pad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- is not legal and correct. She placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-I Vs. Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd.2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (ii) Steelco Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2012 (285) E.L.T. 161 (Bom.) (iii) Commissioner of C. Ex. Customs Vs. Genus Electrotech Ltd. 2013 (296) E.L.T. 175 (Guj,) (iv) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2017-TIOL-1257-HC-MUM-CX (v) Commissioner of C.Ex. S.T., LTU Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (279) E.L.T.209 (Kar.) (vi) Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-II Vs. Gokaldas Images (P) Ltd. 2012 (278) E.L.T. 590 (Kar.) (v) Commissioner of C. Ex., Chennai-II Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Vadodara 2007 (220) E.L.T. 260 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (v) CCE C. Augangabad Vs. Padmashri V. V. Patil S.S.K. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 23 (Bom.) (vi) Commissioner of C. Ex., Jaipur-II Vs. Agarwal Cotton Mills 2007 (220) ELT 274 (Tri.Del.) (vii) Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Aurangabad Vs. Greaves Cotton Ltd. 2008 (225) E.L.T. 198 (Bom.) (viii) Commr. of C. Ex. Delhi-III, Guragaon Vs. Electrolus Kelvinator Ltd., 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1137 (P H) (ix) Sony India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi 2004 (167) E.L.T 385 (S.C.) (x) Seiko Plast Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III 2003 (156) E.L.T. 1008 (Tri.-Mumbai) (xi) Commissioner of C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore we hold that the appellant is liable to pay the interest on wrongly availed credit from the date of taking credit till the reversal thereof. 5. As regard penalty we find that since the appellant has no malafide intention. The wrong credit availment twice on the same invoice is due to inadvertence. This cannot be taken as intention to evade duty. More over the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and paying the huge revenue therefore it cannot be expected from the appellant that they had any malafide intention to avail wrong credit therefore we do not find the present case as fit for imposition of penalty. Accordingly the penalty imposed under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
