TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 66
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is directed against order-in-appeal No. YDB/201M.II/2010 dated 20.4.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II, who upheld the order-in-original dated 30.12.2008. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of encapsulation machinery parts and accessories falling under Chapter Heading No. 84798970 and 84799040 respectively of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner (Appeals) was also dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the perusal of the show cause notice shows that the consignment was cleared to the appellant's own unit No.II under valid invoice No.16 dated 8.6.2005. He further submitted that due to ignorance, their excise clerk did not avail the cenvat credit of duty in RG-23A Part II. He furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....can be imposed in such circumstances as there is no fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of fact as is required under Section 11AC for imposing penalty. (i) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2003 (161) ELT 285 (T); (ii) CCE vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. reported in 2004 (168) ELT 466 (LB); (iii) CCE vs. Vasavadatta Cement reported in 2008 (229) ELT 433. 4. On the other hand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in PLA dated 27.11.2007. Now the question which arises is whether the appellant is liable for penalty under Section 11AC or not. To this, the appellant has relied upon number of judgments cited above. A perusal of these judgments clearly shows that when there is no intention to evade payment of duty on account of fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of fact etc. as mentioned in Section 11AC, ....