Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jay Jagannath Castings(P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 August, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EAST ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
1-2) STAY PETITION NOs.E/S/723-724/2011
IN
EXCISE APPEAL NOs.E/S/842-843/2011
(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.CCE/BBSR-I/04/2011 DATED 06.05.2011 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR-I)
M/S. JAY JAGANNATH CASTINGS(P) LTD.
AND
BHARAT AGARWAL
DIRECTOR OF M/S. JAGANNATH CASTINGS(P) LTD.
APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR-I
...RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE:
SHRI B.N.CHATTOPADHYAY, CONSULTANT ASSITED BY SHRI N.K.CHOWDHURY,ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT(S)/APPELLANT(S);
SHRI S.CHAKRABORTY, A.R.( ASSTT. COMMR.) FOR THE REVENUE. CORAM:
DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. I.P.LAL, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing & Decision:26.08.2013 ORDER NO Per Dr. D.M.Misra These Applications are filed by the Applicants seeking waiver of duty of Rs.81,45,945/- and equivalent penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944; penalty of Rs.25.00 lakh imposed on the Director of the Applicant Firm, the second Applicant herein, under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. At the outset, ld. Consultant for the Applicant submitted that they had already deposited Rs.30.00 lakh during the course of adjudication proceeding. He has submitted that even though the demand was raised based on the documents retrieved from the premises of the Applicant, but the Department has not established the author of the said documents, besides many other lacunae which would show that the Applicant had not indulged in clearance of the goods from their factory clandestinely.
3. Ld. AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the Applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs.30.00 lakh (Rupees thirty lakh) during the course of adjudication proceeding. We find that the amount deposited is sufficient to hear their Appeals. The issue involved in the present case mainly rests on appreciation of evidences adduced by both sides. In these circumstances, predeposit of the balance dues adjudged against both the Applicants is waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeals. Stay Petitions are allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
Sd/- Sd/-
(I.P.LAL) (D.M.MISRA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
DUTTA/
2
E/S/842-843/2011
2