9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period - Thus looking at the conduct of the assessee, the bona fides not thus established, the facts herein rightly called for levy of penalty - The Modvat credit irregularly availed was reversed prior to the show cause notice, does not afford a good defence of good faith and could not be sustained in law - CESTAT order to cancel the penalty could not be upheld - The assesse lacked bona fide, hardly any other material which the CESTAT considered to come to a different conclusion – Decided in favour of Revenue. - C.M.A.No.651 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 27-6-2013 - Chitra Venkataraman And K. B. K. Vasuki,JJ. For the Appellant : No appearance For the Respondents : Mr. S. Muthu Venkataraman for Mr. R. Karthikeyan JUDGMENT (The Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was due to inadvertance and immediately, thereafter on 23.05.2003, they furnished the details of removal on inputs and capital goods during the period 01.05.2001 to 30.04.2003 and paid the duty thereon. Thus, on the removal of goods without payment of duty, proceedings were issued as detailed in the show cause notice demanding duty by invoking Section 11 A(1) proviso of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 57AH / Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2001/Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, applicable during the relevant period as well as proposing to levy penalty under Section 11 AC and interest under Section 11 AB, penalty under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 / Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001/ Rule 26 of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Appeal. 4. On going through the order passed by the Adjudicating Officer, we find that the periodicity of such a default appears to be more than once and in more than one case, the assessee had not observed the procedure prescribed and prevailed during the relevant period. The period involved in respect of clearance to various other sister concerns also were different. Leaving aside the fact that the assessee had paid the duty prior to the issuance of show cause notice, the fact remains that the Adjudicating Authority found that the conduct of the assessee lacked bona fide and the issue was a recurring one. Thus looking at the conduct of the assessee, the bona fides not thus established, the facts herein rightly called for levy of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oran Sugars Ltd., A.Chittur 1.10.2011 to 30.04.2003 Rs.4,761/- V M/s.Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Kollumangudi 1.10.2001 to 30.04.2003 Rs.6,622/- Total duty involved Rs.75,660/- The First Appellate Authority pointed out that the assessee paid the duty only during the course of the investigation and that in the past too, the assessee had cleared the inputs and capital goods from the factory without payment of duty to other units during June, 2000 to April, 2001. The clearance, particularly for the period under consideration, were not reflected in the monthly returns filed and the removal were made under the despatch advices. The penalty levied for the earlier period was confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
