2014 (7) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....P.K. Mittal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.S. Negi, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri P.K. Mittal, Advocate and Shri M.S. Negi, Departmental Representative, we find that the appellant received capital goods in their factory in the year 2001 and availed 50% of credit on 31-3-2001 in terms of the provisions under Rule 4(2) of Cenvat C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The Lower Authority vide impugned order dated 19-11-2004 held that in respect of the Cenvat credit which was taken by the appellant on 4-12-2001 and reversed on 26-2-2003, they are liable to pay interest and to imposition of penalty. Accordingly penalty of Rs. 16,73,656/- has been imposed along with confirmation of demand of interest to the tune of Rs. 4.89 lakhs. 3. After hearing bo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....12 (275) E.L.T. 79 (Bom.) vide which the Revenue's appeal was rejected. In view of the above finding of the Hon'ble High Court the expressions "possession" and "use" had to be read together and once the goods are received, their actual installation and use may not be insisted upon. As the capital goods were admittedly received by the appellant and were ultimately installed and used in the manufact....