9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that it would otherwise lead to the payment of double duty by the appellant. - Tribunal has even otherwise reduced the penalty to only ₹ 1 lac - Decided against assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No.98 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2014 - MR. RAJIVE BHALLA AND MR. B.S.WALIA, JJ. For The Appellant: Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellant, challenges orders dated 28.10.2004 (Annexure A-9) and 06.07.2011 (Annexure A-12) and 15.03.2013 (Annexure A-14), passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Delhi-IV, Faridabad, the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, Court-1, New Delhi and Customs, Excise Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t utilising the deemed credit during the period of forfeiture i.e. 25.09.2002 to 24.11.2002 but during the period of forfeiture, continued to avail deemed credit of basic and additional excise duty to the tune of ₹ 23,96,731. The appellant also utilised this amount for payment of duty in contravention of Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant also appeared to have made short payment of duty during 25.09.2002 to 24.11.2002. The appellant was issued two show cause notices, the first dated 05.03.2003, demanding duty of ₹ 19,82,917/- and the second dated 27.05.2003, demanding duty of ₹ 23,96,731/-. The appellant was also called upon to reply, why deemed credit of ₹ 19,82,917/- availed/utilised duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding as above, the Tribunal held that as demand of duty on the ground that there was restriction in the use of credit for two months would lead to payment of double duty, allowed the appellant to adjust credit towards dues at the time of clearance of final products. The Tribunal, however, directed the appellant to pay interest for the period in dispute and after holding that as there was a violation of utilisation of credit contrary to debarment orders issued under the Central Excise Rules restored the penalty but reduced the penalty to ₹ 1 lac. The appellant thereafter filed an application for rectification by alleging an error in the order. The Tribunal, vide order dated 15.03.2013, dismissed the rectification application. Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 25.09.2002 to 24.11.2002. The appellant, however, continued to violate this order and, therefore, was issued two show cause notices demanding duty of ₹ 19,82,917/- and ₹ 23,96,731/-. The adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's contentions and called upon the appellant to pay ₹ 19,82,917/- and ₹ 23,96,731/- by disallowing deemed credit and also called upon the appellant to pay penalty and interest. The impugned order was set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals), Faridabad, but on an appeal filed before the CESTAT, by the revenue has been set aside by holding as follows:- 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. It is not disputed that there were defaults ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs issued under the Central Excise Rules, namely, orders dated 31.01.2002 and 24.09.2002. Despite these admitted infractions and consequent violation of the rules, the Tribunal was charitable enough to allow credit to be adjusted towards duty at the time of clearance of final products on the premise that it would otherwise lead to the payment of double duty by the appellant. We may not be entirely satisfied with the opinion recorded by the Tribunal but as there is no appeal by the revenue, affirm the order particularly in view of the admission with respect to defaults recorded in the impugned order. The appellant having admitted his default, there was no reason for the Tribunal to go into the notification, clarifications in the budget etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
