TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 884
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods i.e., tyres, tubes and flaps falling under Chapter 40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA, 1985) and were ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e equivalent penalty in terms of Rule 15(2) of CCR read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. The adjudicating authority after following the principles of natural justice vide impugned OIO, disallowed the irregularly availed CENVAT credit and demanded the same from the appellant along with applicable interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 3,09,796/- under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. Aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the Circular issued by the Board as well as various judgments passed by the Tribunal on the identical issue. He further submitted that the appellant has rightly availed the credit as per the invoices issued by M/s. BPCL and therefore, the Department cannot question the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2005 (191) ELT 899 (Tri.-Del.) * Modern Malleables Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2000 (122) ELT 270 (Tri.) He also submitted that the CBEC Circulars are binding on the department and for this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Paper Products Ltd. Vs. CCE: 1999 (112) ELT 765 (SC) * CCE Vs. Dhiren Chemical Industries: 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC) * Ranadey Micronutri....