9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by adopting the above value and it was only balance 8% clearances, the above rule was not followed inadvertently - The Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s Mafatlal Industries Vs. CCE Daman [2008 (10) TMI 517 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] wherein it was held that when the duty is paid by one unit of the same manufacturer and it is available as credit to other unit of the same manufacturer, the entire situation is revenue neutral and penalty should not be imposed - Decided in favour of assessee. - E/728-731/2006 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2011 - Hon ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon ble Dr. P. Babu, Member (Technical) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Adv. for the Assessee; Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR for the Revenue. Per: Mrs. Archana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s credit by recipient unit. 5. After about 2 years, the show cause notice was issued on 27.7.04 proposing confirmation of duty already deposited by the appellant and proposing imposition of penalty upon various persons. The notice culminated into an order passed by Original Adjudicating Authority confirming Central Excise duty of Rs.14,19,253/- and imposing identical amount of penalty upon M/s The Paper Products Ltd. under erstwhile Rule 173Q (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, penalty of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.50,000/- each was imposed on the Director and Authorised Signatory. 6. On an appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld imposition of penalty, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court when the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed as reported in 2010 (255) ELT 877 (SC). He also relies upon Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat decision in the case of CCE Vadodara Vs. M/s Indeos ABS Ltd as reported in 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj.), wherein by taking revenue neutrality into consideration, the appeal was allowed. To the same effect are other decisions relied upon by the appellant. 8. There is no dispute about the fact of availment of credit of duty paid by the present appellant, by their sister unit to whom the goods were being cleared. In fact, duty is not being contested in the present case inasmuch as the appellants have deposited the same and their sister units who have received the goods, have availed the credit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
