2011 (4) TMI 663

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s intimated to the department. It was found that they had not reversed the credit of an amount of Rs.1,42,922/- when they were working under small scale exemption. There was a shortage of raw materials involving duty amounting to Rs.1,32,800/- and excess quantity of finished goods valued @ Rs.4,46,449/-. The case was adjudicated and the appeal filed against the Order-in-Original was upheld subsequently. Against this Order-in-Appeal, the appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal which set aside the Order-in-Appeal and the matter was remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction that a fresh decision may be taken after taking into account the evidences available on record after dealing with the submissions of the appellant. Commission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t payment of any central excise duty and without preparing of any central excise invoices or documents at that time.   4. It is stated that the payment of this amount involved is made by them. The statement of Shri Ashok Gandhi undoubtedly strengthens the findings of Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore it has been proved beyond doubt that the cenvat credit of Rs.1,32,800/- is recoverable. Commissioner (Appeals) in her Order-in-Appeal has found that penalty under Section 11AC is not imposable. However, she confirmed the amount of penalty paid by the appellant as a penalty for contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This is contradictory. The authority under which the penalty is confirmed is also not mentioned.   5. Neve....