1 fa1223.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST AP0PEAL NO.1223 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre, & Shri M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 20th July, 2011 Smt. Kalpalata Bharaswadkar, Adv. for the appellant. Shri S.M.Godsay, Advocate for the respondent ------- 1. The order impugned in the present case has been passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT" for short) dated 23.10.2009. It has found that there was no intention to evade the payment of duty nor has the assessee evaded it and, therefore, no penalty could have been imposed as the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act were not applicable. 2 fa1223.10 It has been observed that there was no revenue loss and, in fact, it was a case of revenue neutral. Apart from this, it has been observed that the essential ingredient required for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC being mens rea, it was absent in the facts of the case. 2. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the authorities below have incorrectly considered the provisions of Rule 15 of the Central Excise rules, when it is Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules which ought to have been considered. She submitted that Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is in para materia with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and, therefore the penalty ought to have been imposed in accordance with Section 11AC of the Act. 3. In our opinion, the Tribunal has considered the matter in its proper perspective and we do not 3 fa1223.10 find that any substantial question of law has been made out by the appellant. Appeal dismissed. (M.T. JOSHI) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/fa1223.10