TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lants are engaged in manufacture of Ceramic Glazed Tiles falling under Chapter 69 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing CENVAT credit on input services and further utilize the same for payment of excise duty on manufacturing and clearing of Ceramic Glazed Tiles. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on Outdoor Catering Services. Department was of the view that the appellants are not entitled to CENVAT credit on Outdoor Catering Services and on these allegations, appellants were issued four show-cause notices dated 29.9.2008; 27.8.2010; 28.6.2011 and 01.05.2012 for the period October 2006 to April 2011, demanding an amount of Rs. 3,58,326/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, appellant did not agree with the imposition of penalty and filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original contesting the penalty portion. The learned Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original on the ground that the appellants have contravened the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant have filed these four appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law because the appellate authority has misconstrued the remand order made by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal has remanded the matter only for quantification of the CENVAT credit to be disallowed which was recovered from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to prove that assessee has taken the credit by reason of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of provisions with an intention to evade payment of duty and in this case, the department has failed to prove that appellants have acted with an intention to evade payment of duty. She further relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Maosaji Caterers vs. CCE, Raipur: 2015 (38) STR 69 (Tri.-Del.) and AET Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2016 (42) STR 720 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein penalty was set aside when the assessee was under the bona fide belief that he is eligible to take the credit. 4.2 She further submitted that the present appeals relate to interpretation of law and therefore, in such ....