2010 (7) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g activity. On scrutiny, it was found that on some invoices although the appellants have taken cenvat credit, it did not mention vehicle number or mode of transportation of inputs in the factory of the appellants. Therefore, the show cause notice was issued for denial of cenvat credit for contravention of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and for imposing penalty under Rule 15(1) ibid. The show cause notice was adjudicated after verification of the documents and the fact the inputs mentioned in the invoices physically received in the factory of the appellants. The cenvat credit was allowed but the penalty under Rule 15(1) ibid has been imposed of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be penalised. Moreover, the appellants have not been alleged that they have taken cenvat credit by fraud, collusion or mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of rules with intent to evade duty. Therefore, the lower authorities has rightly imposed penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules. He further submits that the show cause notice clearly shows that the contraventions of Rules have been made by the appellants and the appellants were very much aware of those contraventions. Therefore, the lower authorities have correctly imposed penalty under the provisions of law. To support his contention, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of A.V.I. Steel Traders v. C.C.E., Delhi-IV reported in 2010 (262) E.L.T....