9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 614 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Confirmation of demand of duty, imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules and Cenvat Credit Rules. Confirmation of Demand of Duty: The appellant's counsel acknowledged the undisputed confirmation of demand issue, citing a previous Tribunal order rejecting similar appeals. The penalty imposition was challenged as erroneous, emphasizing incorrect findings by the adjudicating authority. The Respondent's submission supported the correctness of the penalty imposition. The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand of duty, stating that the issue was covered against the appellants on merits, leading to no interference with that part of the order. Imposition of Penalty under Central Excise and Cenvat Credit Rules: The Commissioner imposed a penalty based on the balance in the Cenvat Account, citing Rules 25 and 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, and Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant's counsel pointed out an error in the submitted annexure, highlighting a significant difference in the balance in the Cenvat account compared to the claimed abatement amount. The Tribunal noted the substantial difference in the account balance and the claimed abatement, leading to the conclusion that the penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules was unwarranted and unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty imposition on the appellants was set aside, and the appeal was partly allowed on this issue. This judgment involved the confirmation of demand of duty and the imposition of penalties under Central Excise and Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal upheld the confirmation of demand of duty, finding it covered against the appellants on merits. Regarding the penalty imposition, discrepancies in the Cenvat account balance and claimed abatement amount led to the setting aside of the penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The detailed analysis provided clarity on the legal reasoning behind the decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.
|
