9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise duty. The respondent had already discharged duty liability along with interest. There is absolutely no justification for imposing equal penalty under Rule 25. The Commissioner (A) has passed a correct order appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. - E/191/2007 - 1409/2008 - Dated:- 17-12-2008 - S/Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) and M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri V.R. Gyaneshwar, JDR, for the Appellant. Ms. Padmini Sundaram, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)].- Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 5/2007-CE dated 8-1-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mangalore. 2. We heard both sides. 3. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority in his findings in the Order-in-Original, has clearly brought out on record that on verification of the RG23A Pt. II by the proper officer, it was found that no such debits were made by the assessee on the said date. Only in the month of March 2006, the debits towards payment of differential amount on the value of clearances of exempted goods in terms of Notfn. No.10/97 was made by the assessee. It would be pertinent to note here that the payment of the differential amount has been made by the assessee only after being pointed out by the Range officer and not on the assessee's own volition. Therefore, the contravention of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, by the assessee is proved and the mens rea of the assessee to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Rules, 2002, for contravention of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the Adjudicating. Authority has rightly initiated the penal action against the assessee. (3) The Commissioner (Appeals), Mangalore, appears to have not considered the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CCE, Delhi-III v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. taken on 26-7-2006 reported in 2006 (202). E.L.T. 398 (P H) = 2006 (4) S.T.R. 177 (P H) while deciding the present issue. In the said judgment it is held that applicability of Sec.11AC is not excluded at the threshold, merely on deposit of duty amount after having been caught and before issuance of SCN. Once a case is covered by the situation mentioned i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
