Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ultra Tech Cement Limited (CESTAT Kolkata)
Respondent submits that when the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty does not arise. He further submits that the impugned order has erroneously invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Act on the ground of willful suppression and imposed penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
A detailed order has been passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of assessee’s appeal being Excise Appeal NO.70 of 2010 vide Final Order No.75181/2023 dated 29.03.2023 and the Order-in-Original was set aside. Since the entire Order-in-Original was set aside there is no question of any further penalty to be imposed under Section 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT KOLKATA ORDER
Against the impugned No.102/Commr./BOL/09 dated 16.10.2009 the assessee had also filed an Appeal being Excise Appeal No.70 of 2010 and the Department filed the present Appeal being Excise Appeal No.85 of 2010 on the ground that the penalty under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 15 of CENAT Credit Rules, 2004 may be imposed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
