SUKRUT EXPORTS, Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are filed by the appellants against the penalties under Section 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central excise Act, 1944.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellants availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods which were not available in their factory premises at the time of visit and were never brought to the factory premises. On pointing out the mistake at the time of visit the appellants reversed the credit along with interest. The appellants were issued show cause notice alleging contravention of Rules 3 and 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was also proposed to recover the same under Section 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and further with proposal of appropriating inadmissible duty paid along with the interest and penalties under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act. The lower authorities confirmed the demand along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the penalty with an option to pay 25% of the duty as penalty as per the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before me.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellants have purchased the machineries and as they were not having sufficient space to install the same in their factory, the machineries were kept in their go -down. During the time of visit of Departmental Officers, 50% credit of duty was claimed on these capital goods which were kept in the go -down. On pointing out by the Departmental officers, they immediately reversed the credit along with the interest and informed the Department not to initiate any proceedings against the appellants. He further submitted that later on they installed the same machineries in their factory and availed credit. The learned Advocate further submitted that there was no malafide intention of the appellants to avail Cenvat credit intentionally. Hence, the provisions of Section 11AC are not attractable in this case.