2018 (2) TMI 462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... input service distributor (ISD). Alleging that the credit was inadmissible, Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of the credit with interest and proposal for penalty; personal penalty on Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan also proposed. On adjudication the demand was confirmed with interest and equal amount of penalty on the appellant company and personal penalty of Rs. 5.00 Lakh on Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed a consolidated appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who, in turn, rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals. 2. Ld. Advocate, Sh. Jigar Shah for the appellant submits that the appellant had rightly availed cenvat credit of the service....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....He submits that merely that the authorized signatory had not filed a separate appeal itself cannot debar him from challenging the personal penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. He submits that the issue has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Benu Ramesh Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise - 2014 (305) ELT 375 (Bom). It is his contention that rejection of appeal filed by Sh. K. G. Unnikrishnan by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, unsustainable in law. On the issue of distribution of the credit only infavour of their Silvasa Unit instead of proportionately distributing credit between the Silvasa and Ghaziabad Unit, the Ld. Advocate submits that no such restriction could be read into the Provisions du....