2014 (10) TMI 419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate For the Respondent : Shri Govind Dixit, DR JUDGEMENT PER: R.K. Singh The appellant filed this appeal against Order-in-Original No. Commissioner/115/2008 dated 31.12.2008 only to the extent it confirmed demand of Rs. 67,59,593/- against the appellant alongwith interest although no penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of Finance Act 1994 or under Cenvat Credit Rule was imposed. 2. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rocedural infringement should not result in denial of a substantive benefit. They have referred to the following judgements in their support: (1) M/s. BSNL Vs. CCE Chandigarh 2010 (17) STR 209 (Tri.-Del.) where the hon'ble CESTAT permitted such adjustment observing that the rules are not tyrants but servant of law and should not be read in a pedantic manner while the appellant is entitled subst....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... submissions made in this case. As is evident from the several judgments cited above, it has been consistently held that substantial benefit cannot be denied in such cases merely because some aspects of the procedure had not been followed. Indeed, such adjustment has been permitted by the CESTAT in BSNL's own case cited in the earlier para. In the present case there has been no malafide on the par....