9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bject behind the imposition of penalty which may be due to a breach of statutory duty like the wrong availing of credit or non-payment of tax under the Act. However, it is seen that the SCN and OIO have chosen to penalise the appellant not on the ground of a technical breach but that of duty evasion, when no such case is made out. It is seen that Section 11A(6) states that in a case where duty is paid with interest before the issue of SCN penalty equivalent to 1% of such duty per month is to be calculated and paid from the month following the month in which duty was payable. The appellant has also in their prayer agreed to pay the same as was required to be done when they opted to reverse the credit and pay interest, before the issue of SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law, the learned Original Authority confirmed the proposals made in the Show Cause Notice and demanded the wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs.7,57,347/- along with interest and imposed an equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Section 11 AC. The Original Authority further ordered for recovery of Rs.6,77,226/- being the duty not paid for the goods cleared in the month of July 2012 that was not available for confiscation along with interest and equal penalty under the provisions of Central Excise Act / Rules. An amount of Rs.7,57,347/- along with interest of Rs.12,410/- paid by the appellant was also appropriated by the Original Authority. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by reducing the penalty an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dodara (2003-157-ELT-548-TRI.Del) e. Commissioner of Central Excise Raipur vs Madhya Bharat Paper Ltd. (2017-346-ELT-317-TRI.Del) f. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs Jadhav Industries (2016-334-ELT-168-TRI. Mum) g. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs CCE ST, Vadodara (2015-317-ELT-144-TRI. Ahmedabad) h) IDMC Vs CCE, Vadodara 1(2014-302-ELT-420-TRI. Ahmedabad) i) Hindustan Coco cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut-2 (2009-248-ELT-502-TRI. Del) The learned Consultant requested that their prayer be allowed. 3.2 The Ld. Authorized Representative Shri N. Satyanarayana supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. I find that this is a case where credit has been wrongly availed by the appellant but reversed along with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acts in conscious disregard of its obligation; but not, in cases where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. There should hence be a proportion between the statutory breach and the penalty imposed. It is seen that Section 11A(6) states that in a case where duty is paid with interest before the issue of SCN penalty equivalent to 1% of such duty per month is to be calculated and paid from the month following the month in which duty was payable. The appellant has also in their prayer agreed to pay the same as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
