2016 (11) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Pakshi Rajan, (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The present two appeals are directed against the common impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 17.7.2014 vide which he has upheld the Order-in-Original but dropped the equal amount of penalty imposed on the appellant. As the issue is identical in both these appeals, they are being disposed of by this com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egular availment of CENVAT credit. But Assistant Commissioner after considering the reply from the appellant confirmed the demand vide his order dated 29.3.2013/28.2.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A). The Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Originals except dropping equal amount of penalty on the appellant. 2.  Heard both the parties an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following authorities. (i) CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (ii)  Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 3.1  The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted the authorities of KPMG vs. CCE, New Delhi repor....