2017 (3) TMI 1139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a None present for the appellant. Heard the Ld. AR for Revenue. 2. In the written submission dated 01.02.2017, the appellant has submitted that two issues are involved in the present case viz.(i) recovery of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,18,285/- wrongly availed by them in relation to shifting activities of their plant at Chennai, and (ii) credit of Rs. 89,809 availed on Outdoor Catering Service (C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for shifting of machineries at Chennai cannot be admissible to the appellant at their unit at Vadodara as it is not in or in relation to the manufacture of goods at vadodara. Further, he submits that even though the CENVAT credit availed on such activity has been reversed however, penalty is rightly confirmed under Rule 15 (2) of CCR, 2004, readwith Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r shifting of the machineries at Chennai, is rightly denied and accordingly its recovery with interest and penalty confirmed by the authorities below is upheld. However, they are eligible to avail the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty on fulfilment of the conditions laid down under the relevant provisions, namely, Rule 15(2) of CCR, 2004 readwith Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, ....