TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssions, the appellant has relied on certain decisions of this Tribunal and one decision of the Supreme Court. Broadly speaking, the case law has been relied on by the appellant in support of their plea that no penalty was attracted where the CENVAT credit in question had been reversed without utilization. 2. The appellant had shifted their manufacturing unit from Bangalore to Hubli in the first week of April 2005. At that point of time, they had an amount of 2,64,226/- to their credit in CENVAT account. In a letter dated 21/3/2005, which was received by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Peenya VI range, Bangalore on 1/4/2005, the appellant had intimated their plan to shift their unit to Tarihal Industrial Area of Hubli and had also i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s received by the addressee on 7/4/2005. The Superintendent (A.R.), in answer to queries from the Bench, submits that the date of taking of CENVAT credit in question by the appellant at Hubli and the date of its reversal are not available. The fact remains that the original authority in this case, in adjudication of a show-cause notice issued to the appellant on 10/4/2006, demanded interest on the amount of CENVAT Credit under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, apart from demanding the said amount of CENVAT credit under Rule 14 read with Section 11A of the Act. It also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/- on the appellant under Rule 15(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. In an appeal filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellant by reversing the credit. On these facts, it is prayed that the assessees appeal against the penalty be dismissed. 3. After considering the above arguments of the learned Superintendent (A.R.) as well as the written submissions of the appellant, I am of the view that there is a valid reason for remanding of this case to the original authority for fresh decision on the question whether, on the facts of this case, a penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is warranted and, if so, to what extent. It appears from the records that the penalty was imposed for contravention of Rule 3(1) read with Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Rule 3 is a substantive provision providing for CENVAT credit as a benefit to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2005. On 5/4/2005, the appellant wrote a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hubli Division, intimating that they had already shifted their plant and machinery along with raw material and semi-finished stock to Hubli. The full address of the Hubli Unit was also furnished in that letter. A copy of this letter was addressed to the Superintendent of Central Excise, Peenya Range, Bangalore. In another letter of even date addressed to the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, the appellant stated that they were surrendering their registration certificate at Bangalore and that they would be applying for registration at Hubli. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hubli Div....