2015 (7) TMI 1000

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stantial questions of law for consideration :- "1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the demand is barred by limitation notwithstanding the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the matter on merits and not on the applicability of proviso to Section 11(A) of CEA, 1944? 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the respondent had not contravened the provisions of Rule 3 and Rule 9 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules despite the fact that the respondent had availed excess invoice credit than they were eligible to take? 3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessee and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued on the assessee and after adjudication, demand was made for a sum of Rs. 1,43,045/- being the excess ineligible cenvat credit availed by the assessee for the period from September, 2004 to September, 2005 along with interest and penalty. After adjudication, the demand of Rs. 1,43,045/- was confirmed and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act was levied along with penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and further penalty of Rs. 1,43,045/- under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), wh....