9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1917 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - error in determination of demand of duty - benefit of reduced penalty was not extended - Held that - RTO verification was done only in respect of vehicle number GJ 12 X 9569, which was demonstrated from records that the said registration number was incorrect producing supporting documents like Form 45A, Tax Invoices, and other documents, like PUC Certificate, Insurance Certificate etc., and we find it so. Since the vehicle No. which were informed to the RTO are in doubt, in our view the confirmation of demand of ₹ 4,28,435/- also wrongly based upon only the report received from RTO. In view of this, we find that there is error apparent on record, accordingly after recording herein above mentioned findings, we set aside the demand of ₹ 4,28,435/- and consequent interest, penalties on such amount. Adjudicating Authority had not. extended the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of the confirmed demand as per the provisions of Sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ld Counsel was correct in stating that Hon ble High court of Gujarat in the case of C.C.E & C, Surat v. Bhagyoday Silk Industries - 2010 (2) TMI 971 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has laid down the law that the benefit of reduced penalty can be extended for the first time by the Tribunal. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncement of the Higher Court, we extend the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% on the confirmed amount of ₹ 12,43,869/- and direct the appellant to pay the said reduced penalty within 30 days of the receipt of this order. - Appeal disposed of.
Issues: Rectification of Mistake in Final Order, Confirmation of Demand, Benefit of Reduced Penalty
Rectification of Mistake in Final Order: The judgment pertains to an application for rectification of mistake in Final Order No. A/11289-18293/WZB/AHD/2013. The applicant sought rectification of errors in the final order dated 10-10-2013. The errors highlighted by the applicant were related to the confirmation of demand and the application of reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal carefully analyzed the application and the submissions made by both sides before delivering its decision. Confirmation of Demand: The Tribunal examined the errors pointed out by the applicant regarding the confirmation of demand. It was noted that the Tribunal had already recorded detailed findings in the final order dated 10-10-2013. The Tribunal specifically addressed the issues related to the demand of Cenvat credit, vehicle numbers, and the reliance on the Transport Commissioner's report. Upon thorough examination, the Tribunal found errors in the confirmation of the demand of Rs. 4,28,435/- based solely on the report from the Regional Transport Office (RTO). Due to discrepancies in vehicle numbers and lack of supporting evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the demand was incorrectly confirmed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand of Rs. 4,28,435/- along with any associated interest and penalties. Benefit of Reduced Penalty: Regarding the benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority had not extended the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% on the confirmed demand of Rs. 12,43,869/-. Citing a precedent from the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the Tribunal acknowledged that the benefit of reduced penalty could be extended for the first time by the Tribunal. In line with this legal principle, the Tribunal decided to grant the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% on the confirmed amount of Rs. 12,43,869/- and directed the appellant to pay the reduced penalty within 30 days of receiving the order. Conclusion: The application for rectification of mistake was disposed of by the Tribunal after addressing the errors pointed out by the applicant and providing detailed reasoning for its decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal provisions and judicial precedents in determining the outcome of the case. The Tribunal's analysis and decision-making process were meticulous and aimed at ensuring justice and adherence to the law.
|
