2018 (6) TMI 311 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – Penalty u/s 11AC read with Rule 15(2) of the CCR 2004 – no appeal preferred against the said order – Held that:- The adjudicating authority by the order-in-original has only imposed penalties under Section 11AC read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It seems that against the said order no appeal has been preferred by the Revenue before the first appellate authority – In the absence of any appeal from the Revenue, the impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 seems to be incorrect, more so, when there is no show cause notice issued by the first appellate authority to the appellant for imposition of such penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR 2004 – app
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
which has already been paid by them and no interest was demanded from them but imposed penalty under the provisions of Section 11AC read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and did not impose any penalty under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. That they appealed against the said order of the first appellate authority and the first appellate authority in the impugned order has set aside the equivalent amount of penalty imposed under the provisions of Section 11AC read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but has imposed a penalty under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which was not in challenge before him by Revenue. 4. When the matter cam up for disposal on 15/03/2018 I have directed the Learned A
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =