9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e., automotive cables falling under Chapter 87 of CETA, 1985. During the audit of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 15(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner challenging the imposition of penalty. Appellant have deposited 25% of the penalty as per the order of the original authority but by the present appeal they have challenged that imposition of 25% of the penalty. 3. Heard both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a good track record. He also submitted that once the irregular CENVAT credit has been reversed along with interest, then the department should not have issued the show-cause notice itself. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * IDMC Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara-I: 2014 (302) ELT 420 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Kotsons Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (333) ELT 456 (Tri.-Del.) * Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant, I find that the appellant is a 100% EOU and as and when the audit pointed out the irregular availment of credit, the appellant reversed the same along with interest and also paid 25% of the penalty as directed by the original authority. But they have challenged the imposition of penalty before the Commissioner (A) but the Commissioner (A) rejected the said appeal. Further, I find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
