2016 (12) TMI 1177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Atul Gupta & Hrishikesh, both Advocates for the Appellant. Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Supdt.) (A.R.) for the Department. ORDER Per Mr. Anil Choudhary : The appellant Dabur India Ltd. is in appeal against confirmation of penalty imposed under Rule 13(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant had made certain pre-deposit pending their appeals. The said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....penalty was imposed of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Rule 13(2) of CCR read with Rule 27 of CER, holding that the appellant was not entitled to take suo-moto credit in absence of any provision under Central Excise Law permitting suo-moto credit. Reference is also made to Board Circular No. 275/37/2000-CX and subsequent Circular No. 802/35/2004-CX observing that the said circulars do not permit for taking s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Section of the Act has been pointed out in the impugned order which have been contravened by the appellant. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the impugned order. 5. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that there is no element of suppression or fraud in taking of credit of pre-deposit which was paid by way of d....