TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(AR) for the respondent. Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. In this appeal filed by the party, the issue, broadly speaking, is whether under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004, for short), a penalty is liable to be imposed on the appellant on the facts of this case. The undisputed facts of this case are: (a) that the appellant was a registered Central Excise dealer during the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for imposing penalty on them under Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004; (g) that this proposal was contested by the appellant; (h) that the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.1,01,326/- on the appellant under Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act on the ground of contravention of Rule 3 of the CC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCE [2011(266) 436 (P&H)]. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. At the outset, I may state that the case law cited by the learned Additional Commissioner(AR) is not apposite to the present context inasmuch as, in that case, the relevant issue was whether a penalty under Rule 25 could be imposed on a dealer by invoking the ingredients of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the party, in their reply to the show-cause notice, did not claim inapplicability of Rule 15 and, in such circumstances, it did not occur to the Department that a corrigendum should be issued to correct the legal error. It appears, it was before the Commissioner(Appeals) that the party, for the first time, took the contention that Rule 15 ibid was not applicable. This contention is being reitera....