2016 (9) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Department caught them. Had there being voluntary payment on the appellant's part, without any action on the part of the Department, they might have deposited the said amount earlier. It may mention that the assessee had already accepted their guilt by depositing the excise duty. The case is not fit for reduction of penalty to any extent. In the instant case, the ‘surrender’ is not voluntary and levy of penalty is justified as per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT]. - Decided against the appellant
Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President and Mr. Ashok K. Arya , Technical Member Present Shri Purshottam Jha, Advocate for the appellants P .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cated in the tax free zone enjoying area based exemption; as they (Baddi unit) did not pay any tax, the question of distribution of cenvat /service tax credit on account of the said exemption does not arise. The assessee's Baddi unit wrongly distributed the inadmissible credit to Malanpur unit during the period of June 2005 to September 2005; October 2005 to March 2006 and April 2006 to March 2007 totalling to the tune of ₹ 2,53,51,829/-. In other words, in the name of Baddi unit, the apellant had availed/utilized inadmissible cenvat credit. When the Department caught the appellant, then they paid inadmissible credit of ₹ 2,43,51,829/- and claimed that payment was made voluntarily. So, it appears from the facts on record that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n , the Department caught them. Had there being voluntary payment on the appellants part, without any action on the part of the Department, they might have deposited the said amount earlier. It may mention that the assessee had already accepted their guilt by depositing the excise duty. The case is not fit for reduction of penalty to any extent. In the instant case, the 'surrender' is not voluntary and levy of penalty is justified as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC). 9. In the light of the above discussion and by considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merits in these cases. Hence, the appeals filed by the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X