Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Allahabad (U.P.) vs M/S. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd on 22 April, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Excise Appeal No.1309 of 2006-SM (BR)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.08-CE/ALLD/2006 dated 24.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad (U.P.)]
Date of Hearing/ Decision:22.4.2008
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)
,,,,,,,,,
1.Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
CCE, Allahabad (U.P.) Appellants
[Rep. by Shri S.L. Meena, DR]
Vs.
M/s. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Respondent
[Rep. by Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate ] CORAM: Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Order No/Dated:22.4.2008 Per P.K. Das:
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondents are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses classifiable under Headings 1701 and 1703 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On scrutiny of the Balance Sheet and General Ledger by the Audit Party, it was noticed that the Respondent purchased DG sets involving Central Excise Duty of Rs.72,966/- in the month of October, 2002 and simultaneously, claimed the Cenvat Credit and deprecation on capitalization on the total cost of D.G. set including Central Excise Duty under Section 32 of Income Tax Act, 1962, which is not permissible under Rule 4 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Respondent immediately reversed the Credit of Rs.72,966/- vide Debit Entry No.02 dated 16.10.2003 in their RG-23 A Part-II Account upon detection by the Audit party. A show cause notice dated 30.05.05 was issued proposing to appropriate the amount of duty as deposited by the Respondent and to impose penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed/appropriated the credit as reversed by the Respondent and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Respondent deposited the duty voluntarily upon detection by the Audit party without any protest. The Respondent had not filed any refund claim against the said amount. The Adjudicating Authority appropriated the amount as the credit was reversed by the Respondent. So, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand of duty is barred by limitation is without any substance. However, I agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and, therefore, the penalty and interest are not sustainable.
3. In view of the above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is modified insofar as the demand of duty confirmed and appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority is upheld. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Order dictated & pronounced in open court on 22.4.2008.
( P.K. Das ) Member (Judicial) Ckp.