ORDER M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act), challenges the order dated 13th May, 2015 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). 2. Appellant has urges the following questions of law, for our consideration :- "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that the Cenvat credit on 50% value of CI Moulds is available in the subsequent financial year under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 200. (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amendment made to Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 by the Cenvat Credit (18th Amendment) Rules, 2003 i.e. Notification No. 70 of 2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 15th September, 2003, are not retrospective and/or clarificatory in nature? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- [sic] under the Cenvat Credit Rules, [2004. " 3. The appellants are manufacturer of M.S. Ingots, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise [Tariff] Act, 1985. The appellant avails Cenvat credit facilities on inputs and capital goods. During the year 2001-02, the appellant procured CI Moulds (capital goods) and availed Cenvat credit of 50% of the duty paid on the said capital goods in the year 2001-02 and the balance 50% of the duty paid, was availed in the August, 2002 i.e. 2002-03. 4. On 24th August, 2003, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, alleging that the appellant was not entitled to balance 50% of Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the capital goods i.e. CI Moulds as the same were not in its possession in the Financial Year 2002-03. This, on the basis of Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Thus, the notice sought to recover the credit availed of Rs. 1,57,008/- under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant was also called upon to show cause why penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 should not be imposed. 5. The appellant responded to the notice, contending that CI Moulds (capital goods) are in the nature of parts/accessories. Thus, the condition of possession was inapplicable. 6. 1,57,008/- under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant was also called upon to show cause why penalty under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 should not be imposed. 5. The appellant responded to the notice, contending that CI Moulds (capital goods) are in the nature of parts/accessories. Thus, the condition of possession was inapplicable. 6. However, by order dated 25th November, 2003, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, confirmed the show cause notice and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/-under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). However, by an order dated 18th October, 2004, the appeal was dismissed by holding that prior to issue of Notification No. 70/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 15th September, 2003, the requirement of possession and use of the capital goods i.e. Moulds was a condition precedent for availing of 50% of Cenvat credit of the duty paid thereon in terms of Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was left undisturbed. 8. The appellant filed a further appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 13th May, 2015, the appeal was dismissed. This by holding that the amendment to Rule 4(2) (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was prospective w.e.f. the issue of Notification No. 70/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 15th September, 2003. It is only by virtue of the amendment that moulds were added to refactory materials as being excluded from the requirement of possession and use of capital goods in the subsequent year to avail of 50% of the Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the capital goods. It also confirmed the penalty of Rs. 20,000/-on the appellant. 9. Re : Questions (a) and (b) :- [(i)] We note that the impugned order of the Tribunal held that the Notification No. 70/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 15th September, 2003 is prospective in effect and would not apply to period prior to 15th September, 2003. In this case, the balance 50% credit was availed in August, 2002. This by following the decision of its Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, 2006 (200) E.L.T. 158 - wherein an identical fact situation, the appeal of the assessee therein was rejected. (ii) Mr. In this case, the balance 50% credit was availed in August, 2002. This by following the decision of its Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, 2006 (200) E.L.T. 158 - wherein an identical fact situation, the appeal of the assessee therein was rejected. (ii) Mr. Singh, Learned Counsel in support of the appeal submits that the amendment made by the Cenvat Credit (18th Amendment) Rules, 2003 [Notification No. 70/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 15th September, 2003], is clarificatory and retrospective. Thus, the benefit should have been extended to the appellant. Particularly, when there is no dispute on its entitlement post the issue of the Notification No. 70/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 15th September, 2003. In support, also invites our attention to the Board Circular No. 755, dated 13th October, 2003. (iii) On the other hand, Mr. Jetly, Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal had placed reliance upon the decision of its Co-ordinate Bench in Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) wherein identical contention was urged on behalf of the appellants-assessee therein, was rejected. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) had preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madras and the appeal of Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) was reported as Sri Krishna Alloys vs. CESTAT, 2016 (334) E.L.T. 645 (Mad.) . Thus, the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decision of the Madras High Court in favour of the Revenue. (iv) We note that the submission of Mr. Singh in support of the appeal, are identical to one which were subject matter of consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) which view was upheld by the Madras High Court in appeal filed by M/s. Sri Krishna Alloys (supra). (v) The Notification No. 70/2003 very clearly makes it effective only from 15th September, 2003. Thus, it is prospective. Further, the Circular No. 755 dated 13th October, 2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs also does not state that it is clarificatory or for removal of doubts. Thus, its benefit cannot be extended to availment of credit prior to 15th September, 2003. (vi) We are in agreement that the view of the Madras High Court in Sri Krishna Alloys (supra). Thus, its benefit cannot be extended to availment of credit prior to 15th September, 2003. (vi) We are in agreement that the view of the Madras High Court in Sri Krishna Alloys (supra). In the above view, questions (a) and (b) do not give rise to any substantial question of law in view of self-evident position. Accordingly, both the questions are not entertained. 10. Appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law at (c) above. 11. As the issue is within narrow compass, at the request of the parties, this question is taken up for final disposal at this stage itself. 12. We have essentially followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Sri Krishna Alloys vs. CESTAT, Chennai (supra) from the order of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal - wherein the Court held that on similar facts, the assessee therein had acted on the bona fide belief that he is entitled to take balance credit in the subsequent assessment year. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal had deleted the penalty imposed upon assessee therein. The impugned order dated 13th May, 2013 of the Tribunal while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), followed the decision of its Coordinate Bench in Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) on merits. It ought to have in the present facts, have also followed the decision on deletion of penalty. 13. This is, particularly, so as nothing has been shown to us in the present facts which would justify imposition of penalty. Nor any reason has been shown to us for the Tribunal not to follow the decision of its Coordinate Bench in Sri Krishna Alloys (supra) in the present facts. 14. In the above view, question (c) is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-Revenue. 15. Accordingly, appeal disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.