9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justed against the demand of duty as a consequence the appellant will not be required to pay the duty equal to cenvat credit from cash/PLA - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. E/1311-1312/09 - A/89023-89024/17/SMB - Dated:- 28-7-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) Shri Dinesh Dave, Director for Appellant Shri A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of goods namely Power and Distribution Transformer and Induction Coils falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 8504 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The preventive officers of the Revenue on collection of intelligence conducted investigation and it was found that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest. He further submits that the amount of duty paid from cenvat credit, the cenvat credit was related to the purchases made during the relevant period therefore they were legally entitled for the cenvat credit. Both the lower authorities have not considered the cenvat credit towards the payments of duty made by them. He submits that the appellant had not mala fide intention to evade the Central Excise duty for the reason that they have shown the excise duty in the invoices which has been recorded in their books. Had there been any intention of evasion they would have cleared the goods without issuing in the invoices. Therefore the lenient view may be taken to decide the appeal. 3. Shri A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in the order in original granted the option of 25% penalty which the appellant failed to avail. The penalty was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. From the facts of the case, it is clear that though the appellant was charging excise duty to the customer and collecting the same, it was not declared to the department by filing the returns, therefore this is a clear case of suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, imposed by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is maintained. As regard the issue of cenvat credit as per the submission of the appellant that they have produced all the documents before the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
