2017 (11) TMI 827

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2. Assessee filed three appeals but one appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 23.1.2014 for the subsequent period pertaining to April 2011 to November 2011. These two appeals pertain to the period prior to April 2011. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Amount involved Penalties Imposed E/25706/2013 December 2009 to August 2010 Rs.48,483/- Rs.10,000/- E/25708/2013 September 2010 to March 2011 Rs.73,409/- Rs.15,000/- 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered under Central Excise and engaged in the manufacture of Excisable goods viz., Food Flavours falling under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atural justice in the Orders-in-Original has confirmed the demanded irregular CENVAT credit availed under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11A of the Act along with the interest under Section 11AA on the said amount and also imposed penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CCR. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed three appeals before the Commissioner (A), which were dismissed by the Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. She further submitted that the credit distributed through ISD i....