2026 (2) TMI 428

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise, Gurgaon-II, whereby the learned Commissioner has dropped the demand of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Respondent/Assessees are engaged in manufacture of Clutch Assembly and Parts thereof and are duly registered with Central Excise department. The Respondent availed the CENVAT Credit on inputs, input services and capital goods used in manufacture of their final products in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Apart from their head-office at Manesar, the Respondent have four other manufacturing units located at Bengaluru, Haridwar, Pune and Tapukara. The Haridwar unit was availing the benefit of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the SCN proposing recovery of the CENVAT Credit along with interest and penalty, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The said SCN was adjudicated by learned Commissioner vide the impugned OIO wherein the demand of CENVAT Credit was confirmed along with interest and the amounts already paid by the Respondent, were appropriated. The learned Commissioner dropped the proposal to impose the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Authorized Representative for the Appellant/Revenue submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner dropping the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, is not sustai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TAT MUMBAI b) M/s CNF Automotive India Pvt Ltd vs. Commr of CGST, Chennai North - 2024 (10) TMI 896 - CESTAT Chennai c) CCE, Delhi-III vs. Machino Basell India Ltd - 2011 (273) ELT 53 (P&H) d) Sri Velmurugan Sago Factory vs. CCE, Salem - 2017 (347) ELT 185 (Tri. Chennai) 5.3 She further submits that the Respondent have always been and are still under the bona fide belief that they are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on the tax paid on IPR and other services. 5.4 She also submits that though she has raised an objection on invocation of extended period of limitation, but she is not pressing the same at this stage and she only restricts her argument under the provisions of Section 11A(2) of the Act which square....