2011 (3) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....puts on 3-12-2002. On the same day the Central Excise Officers found a report titled "Status of Obsolete, Slow Moving, Non-Moving Materials" lying in the room of Shri J.S. Dhillon, senior Manager (Stores). The officers directed that the Cenvat credit availed on the impugned inputs should be immediately reversed. The Appellants reversed such credit on 4-12-2002. 3. Later the department issued a show cause notice proposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act alleging that the Appellant had intention not to reverse the credit and they reversed the credit only because the report regarding unusable inputs were detected by the officers of the department. The SCN culminated in imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. An a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6. The sole question to be decided in this case is whether the Appellant had intention to evade the duty involved in the obsolete inputs and whether for imposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act intention to evade duty is required to be established. 7. The Commissioner (Appeal) appears to have taken note of the head notes published by Excise Law Times while reporting the decision of Dharamendra Textiles (supra) and came to the conclusion that mens rea is not required to be proved for imposing penalty under Section 11AC. This head note relies on para 12 of the order for such an observation. But no such finding is seen in para 12 of the order. The matter before the Honorable Apex Court in that case was whether....