9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal lies in a narrow compass, hence it is taken up for hearing with the consent of the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department. 2. The present Appeals arise out of the Order-in-Appeal No.29- 30/CE/B-I/2010 dated 21.09.2010 passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar, whereby the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) observed as under:- "Rule 25(1)(a) and Rule 25(1)(d) is applicable in this case. I have not found any observation by the adjudicating authority in his order to the extent that, there was an intent to evade payment of duty, although there was a contravention of provisions of Rule-8(1) & 8(3A). Therefore Rule 25(1)(d) is not attracted. But Rule 25(1)(a) is attracted since there was a clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty to 1,00,000/- from Rs.1,80,000/- imposed in the impugned orders. 11. Accordingly I uphold the impugned orders regarding the demand of duty, but reduced the penalty as discussed in para-10 above. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellants have filed the present Appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department justifies the impugned order. 5. The Appellants are in Appeal on the following grounds:- I. For that the Order passed by the Ld.Adjudicating Authority is not proper and the same is not maintainable in law in view of the fact that the Ld.Commissioner did not consider the submissions of the Appellants that the payment could not be made due to financial stringency but subsequently entire amount was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not maintainable since no penalty is imposable.. VI. For that the Ld. Commissioner failed to appreciate that the Rule cannot supersede the substantive provision of the act and hence, payment from the CENVAT Account shall be treated at par with the payments made from the PLA. VII. For that the Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is also otherwise bad in law and in facts. 6. Heard the Ld. Authorized Representative for the Department and perused the Appeal records. 7. We find that the issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Goyal MG Gases Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, wherein it is categor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
