2009 (8) TMI 1039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Shri R.K. Mahajan, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. ORDER After examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that the lower authority denied CENVAT credit of over Rs. 14.7 crores to the appellant under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period September, 2004 to June, 2006. It has also demanded interest thereon under S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the Settlement Commission and the latter passed an order dated 23-11-2007 accepting payment of additional duty to the extent of over Rs. 31.5 crores and settling the dispute between the assessee and the department. The Settlement Commission also granted immunity to the party from imposition of penalty and prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. According to the present appellant, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nity from penalty under the Central Excise Act from the Settlement Commission. The counsel submits that the above proceedings "of the Commissioner at Chennai were not appealed against by the department. In the circumstances, the appellant claims prima facie case against the denial of CENVAT credit as also against the connected penalty. 4. We have heard the learned JCDR as well, who has invited ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yment of duty. On this basis, it is urged that the present application be considered without reference to anything contained in the Settlement Commission's order or in the Chennai Commissioner's order. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, prima facie, the appellant has made out a good case on the strength of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Exci....