2022 (12) TMI 1189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the B-11 bond and a bank guarantee of 3,75,000/-. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the seized goods. The adjudicating authority while adjudicating confiscated goods and appropriated the bank guarantee of Rs. 3,75,000/- and also imposed the personal penalty under Rule 26. The said Order- in- Original dated 30.9.2005 was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide OIA dated 25.04.2006 partially allowed the appeal of the appellant to the extent that the redemption fine was reduced from Rs 3,75,000 to Rs 2,33,645/-.Being aggrieved by the said Order-in- Appeal appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal by Appeal No E/20470/2006. The tribunal vide final order no A/2177/WZB/AHD....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Commissioner (Appeals)who vide order -in- appeal dated 23.11.2011 partly allowed the appeal of the appellant to the extent that the penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was set aside. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for recovery of cenvat credit of Rs. 3,75,000/- along with interest. Being aggrieved by the impugned order in appeal dated 23.11.2011 to the extent that the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand for recovery of cenvat credit along with interest, the appellant filed the present appeal before this tribunal. 2. Shri Ishan Bhatt, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the issue is no longer res-integra and stands decided in the favour of the assessee by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the appellant claimed the refund of amount which was encashed from the bank guarantee for provisional release of the goods whereas the appellant have taken the cenvat credit suo moto. Accordingly, the suo moto credit taken by the appellant was rightly denied by the lower authorities. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the appellant have suo-moto re-credited an amount of Rs 3,75,000/- for which the appellant had given the bank guarantee at the time of provisional release of the seized goods. This amount was subsequently appropriated against confiscation of the seized goods ordered ....