TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, DR For the Respondent : Mr. Manish Saharan (Advocate) ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: This is an appeal by Revenue against order dated 08.02.2007 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Indore. The Respondent are engaged in the manufacture of bare as well as coated pipes of base metal, liable to Central Excise duty. They are availing cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. They have been following the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equal amount of penalty on the Respondent. He also imposed an amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs as penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us. 2. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the Respondent did not follow t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order has examined all the issues raised by the Revenue and came to the correct findings. It was further submitted that the demand made is clearly time barred as correctly held by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the records. 5. The issue involved is the correct quantification of 8% under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules when the Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner (Appeals) recorded that the payment of 8% made by the Respondent was with reference to sale value of the bare pipes and coating cost is as per the contract with the party. Hence, he held that the question of payment of 8% amount on the transportation cost would not arise. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the demand is clearly time barred on the second issue also. He fou....