TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [ 2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] - there is no infirmity in the impugned order dropping the penalty - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/CROSS/20340/2019 in E/21201/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20623/2019 - Dated:- 6-8-2019 - HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Rama Holla, Superintendent (AR) For the Appellant Shri Ravi Kapoor, CA and Ms. Aparna Sharma, CA For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S Garg The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dt. 30/04/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has dropped the penalty of ₹ 20,91,93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b. The demanded amount should be appropriated against the reversals already made by the company for the periods mentioned above; c. Applicable interest should not be demanded and recovered as per Rule 14 of the CCR; and d. Penalty of 50 percent of the above duty should not be imposed under Section 15(2) of the CCR read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2.2. The respondent filed reply to the show-cause notice and submitted that (i) the CENVAT credit to the tune of ₹ 18,83,791/- for the period April 2011 to February 2013 has already been reversed as per the provisions of rule 6(3A) of the CCR and the same is evident from the copy of the periodical ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly dropped the penalty equivalent to the duty specified in the show-cause notice only on the ground that the respondent company has reversed the irregular CENVAT credit before the issuance of the show-cause notice. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has failed to appreciate the merits of the case and has also not refuted the suppression of facts by the assessee and he has simply set aside the penalty by holding that the duty amount was paid prior to issuance of the show-cause notice. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) without taking cognizance of the fact that the duty demand was confirmed by invoking extended period under Section 11A(1) / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
