9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Oral)]. - The Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat-II has filed this Tax Appeal under Sec. 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate the following substantial question of law for determination and consideration of this court : "Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in rejecting appeal of the department on the ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at credit on the stock available on 1-4-2003." The Tribunal has further observed that "the said findings of the Assistant Commissioner were not appealed against by Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals) and have attained finality." 4. This finding is not correct as the Revenue has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 27-11-2007 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to their jurisdictional Range Superintendent with ER-1 monthly return. Such act of the unit is not merely a procedural lapse but an offence with an intent to avail excess Cenvat credit and cells for imposition of penalty equal to the excess Cenvat credit availed." After recording this finding, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the departmental appeal for imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,86,599/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals), while deleting the penalty levied on the director, also proceeded on the same footing. It is true that the order passed by the Commissioner deleting the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was passed on 28-6-2007 which is first in point of time, whereas the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) levying penalty of Rs. 2,86,599/- on the unit is of 27-11-2007. However, in any case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
