2017 (4) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 14,81,87,476/-; confirmed the demand of an amount of Rs. 47,70,408/- being irregular Cenvat credit; imposed a penalty of Rs. 14,81,87,476/- under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000/- on the petitioner in WP.Nos.8836 and 8837 of 2017 being the incharge of the petitioner company; appropriating an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- paid by the petitioner company; confirmed the demand of Central Excise Duty of Rs. 5,22,76,107/- being the duty short levied and short paid during the period from July 2015 to January 2016; confirmed the demand of interest; imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,22,76,107/- under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposed a penalty of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal. The respondent in his order at paragraph No.45, has given some reasons as to why he is refraining himself from taking a decision based on the above order of the Tribunal. He has specifically pointed out that the details of the contracts between the said Unit namely Butterfly Gandhimati Appliances and the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation as well as the copies of the invoices and the returns are not made available by the petitioners. Thus, it appears that the adjudicating authority was not in a position to appreciate the similarity of facts and circumstances between the case on hand and the Butterfly Gandhimati Appliances case. Therefore, it is evident from the finding of the respondent that he wants to distinguish the said dec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed not be exercised. This Court has taken similar view in a recent order made in WP.No.8553 of 2017 dated 10.04.2017 by following the decision of the Apex Court, as well as the Division Bench of this Court and dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner therein to file an appeal. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the following decisions:- i) M/s.Nivaram Pharma Private Limited, rep. By its Director Sardarmal M.Chordia, Madras vs- The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Regional Bench, Madras and others reported in (2005) 2 MLJ 246(DB). ii) United Bank of India -vs- Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110. iii) Raj Kumar Shivahare -vs- Assistant Direc....