TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no dispute as to the fact that the goods are considered as obsolete by the appellant and provided for write off in the books of accounts, does not mean that the goods were removed from the place of manufacture. It is only of accounting entry which would indicate the true and correct picture of the financial status of the company to their shareholders - Non-reversal of central excise duty in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant has to be visited with equivalent amount of penalty under the provisions of Rule 15(2) read CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or otherwise. 4. It is noticed from records that during the period March 2007 to September 2008, appellant had availed CENVAT credit of various capital goods, inputs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id amount and appropriation of the amount so deposited. Adjudicating authority after following due process of law, confirmed demands raised with the interest and also appropriated the amount and ordered for imposition of penalty of equivalent amount on the appellant under Rule 15 (2) of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also under various rules. On an appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so to be noticed that though provisions of Rule 3 (5B) introduced in CCR, 2004, there is no recovery mechanism which has been put in place to enable recovery of CENVAT credit, if any, wrongly taken under the said provisions and the said recovery mechanism was brought into statute with effect from 01.03.2013, would mean that the show cause notice issued in the case in hand on 30.03.2012, could have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
