2017 (2) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....respondent Per: Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that during the checking of ER-1 returns for the period March,2005 to June, 2005, it was noticed that the appellant was clearing their goods under Notification No.30/04-CE dated 9.7.2004 and no duty was paid. All the goods were of exempted category, whether it was clearance for home ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appeal against the said order. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) the amount already paid had been appropriated and interest for the intervening period was demanded and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that although the appellant has taken credit on capital goods, but....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. 4. On the other hand, learned AR submitted that as the appellant was not manufacturing any dutiable goods, therefore, as per Rule 6(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is not entitled to avail credit on capital goods. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that as per Notification No.30/....