2017 (7) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Mr.Sachin Chitnis for the Respondent ORDER PER COURT 1] The Department has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the CESTAT, thereby the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed and the penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has been quashed. 2] The learned counsel for the Appellant strenuously contends that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise MumbaiI v/s. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 3 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Steelco Gujarat Ltd. v/s. Union of India, reported in [2012] (285) E.L.T. 161. 4] We have considered the submissions, the judgment and the precedents relied by the learned counsel for respective parties. 5] It is not disputed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the present case. In the said case, before the Apex Court the payment was made on the input, the Assessee got the credit, which was never utilized and before utilization, the entry has been reversed. It is further observed that if before utilization, the entry has been reversed it amounts to not taking credit. The said judgment is followed by the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Steelc....