9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Appellant. Shri S. Gautam, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this case certain stock of coke on which Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 7,16,718/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen only) had been taken by the appellant was washed away in flood before it could be used in manufacture of the final products. Subsequently it was pointed out by the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Rupees Two Lakhs only) observing that the offence is not so great that it should attract an amount of equal penalty. It is against this penalty that the appellant has filed the present appeal pleading that since at the time of taking Cenvat credit, the same has been correctly taken and since the goods were washed away in flood before the same could be used and subsequently when the department poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Punjab Communications Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T. 301 (Tri.-Del.), wherein it was held that when the inputs in respect of which Cenvat credit has been taken were destroyed by fire accident and the appellant had neither informed the fact of the destruction to the department nor reversed the Cenvat credit, even in such circumstances, the penalty is not imposable under erst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al s judgment in case of Unicure (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 106 (Tri. -Del.). 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. There is no dispute about the fact that the Cenvat credit of Rs. 7,16,718/- which was subsequently reversed along with interest, had initially being taken on receipt of coke to be used as raw material for manufacture of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents cited by the learned DR - M/s. Ramala Sehkari Chinni Mills Ltd. (supra) and M/s. Unicure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are not on the issue of imposition of penalty in such cases. Therefore following the Tribunal s judgment in case of M/s. Punjab Communications Ltd. (supra), I hold that no penalty is imposable on the appellant. The part of the impugned order upholding penalty on the Appellant is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
