TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was sufficient CENVAT credit in the books of the assessee during the relevant time. Demand of interest and penalty do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21603/2017-SM, ST/21604/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20360-20361/2019 - Dated:- 24-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. M. Sharan, Asst. Commissioner, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The appellants have filed these two appeals directed against the impugned order dated 30.12.2016 and 19.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) in Appeal No. 21604/2017 has reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act and also imposed penalty of ₹ 100/- on the appellant under Rule 15 (1) of the CCR, 2004. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner vide Corrigendum dated 03.07.2013 reduced the interest from ₹ 13,53,777/- to ₹ 6,99,525/- confirmed under Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 75 of the Finance Act which was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order dated 30.12.2016 rejected the appeal of the appellant. The Department has also filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) for not imposing appropriate penalty on the appellant under Rule 15 (1) of the CCR, 2004. The Commissioner (A) enhanced the penalty from ₹ 100/- to ₹ 10,000/- which has also been challenged by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held as under: It is an admitted fact that Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules has been subsequently amended, wherein it has been clearly stated as taken and utilized . Therefore, it is quite clear that mere taking itself would not compel the assessee to pay interest as well as penalty. Further, as pointed out earlier, the subsequent amendment has given befitting answer to all doubts existed earlier. Since, the subsequent amendment has cleared all doubts existed earlier in respect of Rule 14 of the said Rules, it is needless to say that the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Department is erroneous, whereas the argument advanced on the side of the respondent is really having merit and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
