2015 (3) TMI 422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order for imposing penalty under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturers of excisable goods and are exporting the same. For the goods exported by them, they are entitled to refund claim on the excise duty paid on the finished goods. Instead of claim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Ms. SipraChakraborty is disposed of as abated. 5. The ld. counsel further submits that the show-cause notice has been issued for imposition of penalty on the ground that they have taken credit intentionally and wrongly. The show cause notice has not specifically defined that there was an intention of the appellant to take inadmissible credit. Therefore, the penalty under Rule 13(2) is not im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 8. As per the decision of Ashokkumar H. Fulwadhya (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held that the penalty under Rule 13 can be imposed on the person who is taking credit. In this case, the credit has been taken by M/s. Anthea Aromatics P. Ltd. and not by Shri Vincent Paul.....