2010 (5) TMI 253

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....S. Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: N.K. Patil, J.]. - The instant appeal is directed against the order impugned dated 18-8-2006 passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore, in Appeal No. Excise/1141/2003. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the tribunal was correct in held that the respondent have reversed the credit even....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the same. After considering the reply, the assessing authority passed the order dt. 17-9-2001. Being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), in turn, rejected the appeal and upheld the original order passed by the jurisdictional competent authority. Being aggrieved by the same, the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....either been looked into nor appreciated by the Tribunal and proceeded to pass the order impugned. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, substantiating the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the Tribunal has passed the order strictly following the well settled law of the Apex Court. Further, he pointed out that, in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y is not leviable in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sree Krishna Pipes. Further, it is pertinent to note that this Court, in the case of respondent-assessee itself, i.e. in the case of Commissioner of LTU, Ban galore v. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 178 (Kar.) in CEA. No. 25/2007 disposed of on 12-3-2010. has held that interest and penalty can be levied ....