2022 (6) TMI 1178

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to Rs 11,37,444/-. In the first round of litigation the demand of cenvat credit was dropped except for the confirmation of amount which was already reversed by the appellant and imposition of equal penalty under Rule 15(4) of CCR, 2004 read with section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 equal to the reversal made voluntarily vide OIO dated 29.11.2018. The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2018 filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that there is no suppression of fact and amount was voluntarily reversed, also that penalty under Rule 15(4) of CCR, 2004 was not imposable for the fact that the same is applicable to output service provider whereas the SCN was issued in the Appellants role as a manufacturer. The c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 15 (1) and 15(2) w.e.f 27.02.2010 vide notification No. 06/2010 -CE (NT) therefore, penalty under rule 15 of the CCR, 2004 cannot be imposed directly hence, the same also cannot be confirmed indirectly by imposing penalty under section 11 AC Central Excise Act, 1944. He further submits that penalty is also not imposable under Rules 15 (4) of CCR, 2004 for the fact that the said rule applicable to service provider only and not to the manufacturers hence, penalty imposed under Rules 15 (4) of CCR, 2004 is not sustainable. He placed reliance on the following judgments: • 2008(12) STR 468 (Tri-LB)-Commr. of CEX Mumbai IV v/s GTC Industries Ltd delivered on 25.09.2008. • 2009(242) ELT 168 (Bom.) Coca cola India Pvt ....