2018 (4) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant   Shri Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 05/07/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has partly allowed the appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty of Rs.l  under Rules 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and penalty of Rs. 6 418/- under Section 11AC and Rs. 5000/- under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who confirmed the denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 3,85,965/- under Rule 14 along with interest and also confirmed the penalty under Ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tral Excise duty on the clearances effected by recycling the rejected goods. The duty demanded amounts double duty since the differential duty has already been discharged and there is no contravention of the CCR and this fact is evident from the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) without any verification of record or by any investigation report has wrongl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that in the present case., the demand has been confirmed on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and by taking the average of the last 5 years. Further I find that in the present case, no investigation was conducted by the Department and there is no allegation that the appellant has removed the rejected goods as such. The Commissioner....