2010 (5) TMI 447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;   Shri T.M. Subramanian, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 88/2007-C.E., dated 28-5-2007 wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand raised against the appellant and also imposed penalties which were not impos....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the demand of interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no question of imposition of any penalty as the appellant has never utilized the amount and infact the appellant is eligible for such credit. On a specific query from the Bench, the ld. Counsel submits that appellant has not challenged the order of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the amount of inadmissible Cenvat credit taken by the appellant. 5.2 On perusal of the records, we find that the Cenvat credit taken by the appellant on the capital goods/inputs which were used in the Application Research Centre and Product Development Research Centre, is within the factory premises to the appellant. It is also undisputed that the inputs consumed and the capital goods wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty imposed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under the Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not sustainable. The penalty imposed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Rule 13 is set aside. 6. As regards the interest, from the statement produced by the ld. Counsel, we find that the appellant in fact had utilized the amount of credit taken by them for some month. As they have not ch....