9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced by the Department that they were involved in acquiring possession of or in transporting, removing, selling or purchasing of any excisable goods or in any other manner dealing with excisable goods, which they knew or had reason to believe were liable for confiscation - Appeal are allowed - 2237-2239 of 2005 - 749-751/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 12-8-2011 - Mr. Justice R.M.S.Khandeparkar, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, JJ. Shri Vinod, Clerk of the Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.R.Meena, SDR for the appellant. Per Rakesh Kumar : The facts leading to these appeals are, in brief, as under :- 1.1 M/s Raghunath International Ltd. (herein after referred to as appellant company) are engaged in manufacture of Pan Masala, Pan Masa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he wrong availment of Cenvat Credit of Rs.40,022/-. On this basis, after issue of a Show Cause Notice, the Jt. Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dated 20.01.05 confirmed the duty demands of Rs.12,37,500/- and Rs.1,53,239/- against the appellant company along with interest, the Cenvat Credit demand of Rs.40,022/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs.14,30,761/- (Rs.12,37,500+Rs.1,53,239+Rs.40,022) on the appellant company under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also penalty of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- on Shri Rajesh Agrawal and Shri Rajesh Dixit respectively under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2004. On appeal to Commissioner(Appeals), the Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-In-Appeal dated 28.04.05 set aside the du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is incorrect to demand the Cenvat Credit of Rs.40,022/- in respect of shortage of Laminates and Zippers on the presumption that the same had been cleared without reversal of the Cenvat Credit, that there is no justification for penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Shri Rajesh Dixit and Shri Rajesh Agrawal and that in view of this the impugned order upholding the duty demand of Rs.1,53,439/- Cenvat Credit demand of Rs.40,022/-, imposition penalty on the Appellant Company under section 11AC and penalty under Rule 26 on authorised signatories, is correct. 2.2. Shri S.R.Meena, Ld. SDR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order. 3. We have carefully cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the same is in respect of Cenvat Credit availed Lamination materials and Zippers found short. Though the appellant s plea that this may be due to wastage, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) if it was waste, it must have been accounted in the books of accounts but no evidence in this regard have been produced. The shortage of Cenvat Credit availed on Lamination and Zippers maybe due to short receipt of the same. We, therefore, upheld the Cenvat Credit demand of Rs.40,022/- along with interest 6. Since only the Cenvat Credit demand of Rs.40,022/- survives the penalty on the appellant is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. 7. As regards the penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules on Shri Rajesh Dixit and Shri Rajesh Agrawal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
