9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... crutiny and investigation, the department was of the view that the appellant have taken credit on input services going into the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted products and therefore they were not entitled for benefit of notification No. 1/2011 CE dated 1.4.2011. The department was of the view that the appellant should have paid normal rate of Central Excise duty on the clearance of wagons which were cleared after availment of concessional rate of Central Excise duty as provided under Notification No.1/2011-CE. The Department was also of the view that valuation of the free supplies provided by the Indian Railways to the appellant was not done in a right manner and as a result there was a short payment of Central Excise duty on c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal and the Principal Bench vide its Final Order No. A/50459/2017 Ex(DB) dated 24.1.2017 allowed the appeal of the appellant by way of remand. While remanding the matter this Tribuanl has recorded the following findings: Page 2 _a to D The matter was taken up by the leanred Commissioner (Appeals) CE ALwar for denovo adjudication and vide Order-in-Original No. ALW-EXCUS-000-COM-030-17-18 dated 01.01.2018 has passed the following orders: Page 88 (i) to (viii) The appellant aggrieved of the fact that the adjudicating authority has wrongly imposed penalty on them under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as well as for imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 207 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. We have heard both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravention of the provisions of this Rule. We find that in the instance case, the cenvat credit has rightly been availed by the appellant which was debited wrongly. As the Central Excise duty has already been paid from PLA on the same goods and, therefore, we feel that its wrong on the part of the appellant to revoke the provisions of Rule 15(1). In this case we find that the adjudicating authority has erred in imposing penalty of Rs. Five lakh on the appellant under the provisions of Rule 15 (1) and therefore, we set aside the same. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has also been imposed as per the provisions of Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for not following the laid down procedure of the Central Excise Act / Rules for general vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
