TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/NSK/49/2011 dated 28.2.2011. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Since the appeal is of 2011, I take up the appeal for disposal in the absence of any representation from the appellant-assessee. 3. The issue in short in this case is regarding penalty imposed on the appellant on the provisions of Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Both the authorities imposed penalty of equivalent amount. 3. Learned D.R. draws my attention to the facts of the case and also to the contravention which has sought to be charged against the appellant. He would submit that the penalty has been correctly imposed. To support his contention he submits the following case laws:- (a) Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - 2007 (211) ELT 481 (Tri. Mumbai) (b) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority in the impugned order had in para 11 categorically recorded that the appellant had been filing regular returns with the authorities and was mentioning the production/clearance of both dutiable and exempted goods with value, duty payable, Notification No. and also the details of CENVAT credit availed and utilized. In my considered view having declared the entire transactions that took place ....