9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter rectification, the appellant got the goods back from the supplier - demand alongwith interest upheld. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,25,479/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not justified in the present case because there is no malafide intention of the appellant to evade payment of duty. The appellant was under a bona fide belief that since he has not sold the goods to the original supplier and he has mentioned in the invoices NOT FOR SALE and has reversed the same duty which was availed as CENVAT credit - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part. - E/20117/2019-SM - Final Order No.20460/2019 - Dated:- 10-6-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant had purchased 32,600 nos. of accessories of SP Static Meters from M/s Adura Meters Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad in June, 2010 to August, 2010 for the manufacture of Electric Meters on payment of prevailing duty, i.e., 10% ad valorem and took CENVAT credit of the same. He further submitted that a quantity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to their supplier for replacement. He further submitted that the appellant failed to prove that after the rectification, those meters were received by them as replacement. He further submitted that as per the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, they have sent the inputs for replacement of the said material was not proved or recorded by the appellant, rather the appellant says that replacement is irrelevant to be proved. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that the appellant have not been able to establish that the goods were returned to the appellant after the rectification. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the differential duty of 2%. Further, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner demanding the differential duty from the appellant because the appellant has failed to prove that after rectification, the appellant got the goods back from the supplier. Further, I find that the imposition of penalty of ₹ 1,25,479/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not justified in the present case because there is no malafide intention of the appellant to evade payment of duty. The appellant was under a bona fide belief that since he has not sold the goods to the original supplier and he has mentioned in the invoices NOT FOR SALE and has reversed the same duty which was availed as CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
