2016 (11) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri G.R. Singh, A.R. for the respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and were availing cenvat credit on inputs and the capital goods and using the same to discharge duty on final products. It was noticed that during the period January 2010 to November 2010 the appellants were clearing excisable goods but have not discharged dut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9.1.2013 held that the amount liable to be paid in cash by the appellants worked out only to Rs. 16,69,419/-. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 11,23,262/- has been paid through cash already by the appellant. The same was ordered to be appropriated. Additional penalty equal to the duty demand was also imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. In appeal it is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t credit. We find that similar matters came up for decision before the Tribunal in various cases. In Steel Tubes of India Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Indore 2016 (337) ELT 306 (Tri-Del.), it was held that the duty liability when fully discharged, payment of the amount again by cash only which will result in to re-credit of already debited credit is not necessary. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the ....