9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case. The issue involved is that cement manufacturers were availing credit of duty on furnace oil and LDO at the rate of 15%. From 1-4-1998, under notification No. 5/94, credit at 15%, which was the duty recovered from the cement manufacturers and paid by them was restricted to 10% under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The cement manufacturers assosiation took up the matter with the concerned authorities and the present appellant vide their letter, dated 2-5-1998 informed the department that they will raise credit to the extent of 15% of the duty which they have discharged by paying it to the suppliers but will not utilise 5% of the credit unless the matter was finally settled. The department, however, on 9-6-1998 info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Rules, 1944. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the account and going through the submissions observed "It is observed that the appellants had filed the credit but had not utilised the same and therefore imposition of penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs is too harsh and is required to be reduced....I accordingly, reduce the amount of penalty from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal is otherwise rejected." The present appeal is against this penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. 2. We have heard learned consultant Shri R.G. Utagikar who reiterated the submissions in the grounds taken in the appeal and stay application and submitted that as the admitted position is that the excess credit were reversed prior to the issue of show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as credit to be 'autocratic manner.' Rule 173(bb) does not permit the imposition of penalty for behaving in an autocratic manner. We find that the appellants has written to the department and there was a matter, taken up by the cement manufacturers assosiation as the 15% duty which was levied on the imports was reduced to 10% by a notification on 1-4-1998. The very fact of representing against a levy and taking credit and not utilising the same and thereafter on being directed by the departmental authorities reversing the same under protest to our mind is not an act of an autocrat. It appears to be the act of a commercial enterprise seeking redressal in the proper form. When the Collector (Appeals) have found that the credit availed was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
