2011 (9) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee   Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Revenue   Heard both sides.   2. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant-assessee paid Rs.1,47,965/- on 5.10.2008 for the clearances made during the month of September 2008. This amount was paid by utilizing CENVAT credit as per rules in force. The appellants were permitted to use the credit available up to the end of September 2008 fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th the appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposal as these arise from the same impugned order.   4. After considering arguments from both sides as well as the facts of the case, I am of the view that the lower appellate authority was right in considering wrong utilization of Rs.71,965/- as a case of mere infringement of the legal provision rather than a default in payment of duty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cessary to impose equal penalty in a case such as this. I am of the considered view that imposition of penalty of about 10% of the duty amount in such a case would meet the ends of justice apart from requiring the appellant-assessee to pay interest on the amount wrongly utilized as required under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The learned counsel for the appellant-assessee confirms that....