TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.08.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order-in-original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are clearing excisable goods for home consumption on payment of duty and also to M/s Bharath Earth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4,25,394/- and interest of Rs. 85,381/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount i.e. 4,25,394/-. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order-in-original. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same has been passed without properly un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther duty nor CENVAT credit. In this regard he placed reliance on the decision in the case of 2002 (149)ELT 490 upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003(153)ELT A 89 wherein it is held that the amount payable in such cases are neither duty nor Modvat credit. The recovery related to that is dealt separately by the explanation to Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 without invoking the explanation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Agro Ltd cited (supra) has held that the provisions of Section 11AC of the CE Act are applicable only in respect of short- payment of duty whereas the payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not duty but an amount. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana as reported in 2010 (254)ELT 25 (P&H)] wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court ha....