TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remission of duty is made, it is an acceptance of the fact that goods which were destroyed had reached a stage which can be considered as finished goods - having accepted the fact that the goods which were destroyed in fire are liable to duty, hence remission of duty was sought, the impugned order confirming the demands raised of reversal of Cenvat Credit on the inputs seems to be correct. We uphold the impugned order that confirms demand along with interest. Penalty - Held that:- Penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is unwarranted as the issue was in knowledge of light of the authorities, and also the issue involved interpretation - saddling appellant with penalty is uncalled for more so, when they have utilised the inputs for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accident subject to reversal of Cenvat Credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture or production of said goods. The appellant did not agree with contention of the revenue authorities hence a Show Cause Notice dated 08.02.2010 was issued for demand of Cenvat Credit involved in the inputs which were issued for production and were contained in the semi finished goods, intermediate goods that was discharged in the fire. Appellant contested Show Case Notice on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand so raised and with interest and also imposed penalties. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that the demand has been raised on input which was used for manufacturing purposes and was in process, wherein semi finishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould mean that the demand Cenvat Credit availed on inputs used in such goods needs to be reversed as provided under law. We find that having accepted the fact that the goods which were destroyed in fire are liable to duty, hence remission of duty was sought, the impugned order confirming the demands raised of reversal of Cenvat Credit on the inputs seems to be correct. Accordingly we uphold the impugned order that confirms demand along with interest. 8. As regards penalty, we find, penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is unwarranted as the issue was in knowledge of light of the authorities, in our view saddling appellant with penalty is uncalled for more so, when they have utilised the inputs for manufacturing process but due un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
