2013 (2) TMI 224

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... A.K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner(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 r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out supply of materials to M/s. Laxmi Constructions, a 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 Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this connection, he claims support from Vee Kay Enterprises vs. 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 deal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....they chose Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004. It also needs to be mentioned that 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 ....