2016 (9) TMI 578

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Naskar, AR for the Respondent. ORDER [Per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The appellants are manufacturers of Bright Bars and Bolts and are registered with the department. On scrutiny of records it was found that appellants had taken 100% credit on capital goods for the period from September, 2007 to December, 2007. The availment of 100% credit on capital goods being contrary to the provisions of Cenv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nge against the penalty only. She strongly contended that as there is no demand of duty in the show cause notice, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable. That no penalty can be imposed for the demand of interest. She drew support from the judgment laid in Ispat Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad 2012 (275) ELT 456 (Tri-Mum). Against this, the learned AR, Shri H.S. Naskar assailed the findings in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the show cause notice itself is for demand of interest only and no determination of duty, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the proposed penalty of equal amount. The penalty is seen imposed under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 r/w section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. When there is no evidence to establish that wrong availment of credit was intentional and a determination of duty for the sa....