Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hpcl vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 August, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Application No. E/S/96568/13 in Appeal No. E/87793/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/RN/COMMR/M-II/2013-14 dated 12.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s HPCL Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Respondent Appearance: Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate for Appellant Shri B.S. Meena, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 19.08.2013 Date of Decision: 19.08.2013 ORDER NO. Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan
The appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Original No. 03/RN/COMMR/M-II/2013-14 dated 12.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II.
2. The appellant, M/s HPCL, is a public sector oil marketing company. During the period August, 2007 to December, 2007, the appellant took wrong credit of the CVD paid on imported capital goods. Instead of taking credit of the CVD paid, they took credit of assessable value of the imported goods. Subsequently, when the 50% balance credit was taken in the subsequent financial year, the appellant committed the same mistake. Thus, the total CENVAT Credit wrongly taken amounted to Rs.1,83,04,230/-. When the mistake was detected during the audit of the records, the appellant reversed the credit taken along with interest thereon. Thereafter, a notice dated 3.9.2012 was issued. The notice was adjudicated by the impugned order and the demands were confirmed along with interest thereon and also by imposing equivalent amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the mistake occurred inadvertently while taking of credit of CVD paid. Instead of duty paid, credit was taken of the assessable value of the imported goods. However, as soon as the mistake was pointed out, they had reversed the credit along with interest thereon except for an amount of Rs.3.48 lakhs which is pending to be paid. Inasmuch as the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), he pleads for leniency and prays that penalty be waived. However, he submits that the appellant is willing to pay balance amount of interest.
4. The learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that appellant has repeatedly violated the provisions of law and, therefore, the appellant should be penalized.
5. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal itself for consideration and disposal.
5.1 The demand of duty and interest is not in dispute and the appellant has paid the duty and bulk of interest and only a small amount of Rs.3.48 lakhs is pending to be paid. We direct the appellant to pay balance amount of interest due of Rs.3.48 lakhs forthwith.
5.2 As regards the imposition of equivalent amount of penalty, we agree with the contention of the appellant that being a PSU, there cannot be any motive on part of the appellant to evade any duty. As soon as the mistake was pointed out, they have made reversal of the credit along with interest thereon. Therefore, imposition of equivalent amount of penalty is not warranted. However, we notice that the appellant has been frequently committing errors in taking the credit and, therefore, the imposition of some penalty is warranted. Therefore, we impose a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 instead of the penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The stay petition is also disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
4