Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Tulsyan Fabricators Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No. E/202/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.05/Kol-IV/12 dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal-IV) of Central Excise, Kolkata)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
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
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s. Tulsyan Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
None for the Appellant (s) Sri S.Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing:- 28.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement :- 28.07.2016 ORDER NO.FO/A/75690/2016 Per Shri H.K.Thakur
1. This Appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. 05/Kol-IV/12 dated 20.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV. Under this OIA dated 20.01.2012 First Appellate Authority has upheld OIO dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant when the case was called out for hearing today. On earlier occasions when the case was fixed for hearing on 28.03.2016 also none appeared on behalf of the appellant.
3. Sri S.Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant has cleared certain inputs as such on which Cenvat credit was taken. That as per the estimation done by the Adjudicating Authority in paragraph-3.2 of OIO dated 31.07.2009 the quantities of raw material utilized was worked out to be 1605.989 M.T. where as the same has been claimed to be 1577.293 M.T. by the appellant. That appellant is not able to explain the shortages in inputs, therefore, the Cenvat credit has been correctly confirmed against the appellant by the lower authorities.
4. Heard Ld. AR and perused the case records.
5. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether appellant has cleared inputs as such on which Cenvat credit was taken. The First Appellate Authority has passed reasoned order based on the records available to hold that consumption of raw material was 1605.989 M.T. and there was difference in inputs stock of 29.859 M.T. Under Cenvat credit procedure appellant is required to be maintain correct records regarding receipt and consumption of raw materials on which Cenvat credit was taken. When inputs are cleared as such then credit taken w.r.t. the inputs cleared has to be reversed. Accordingly, the order passed by the First Appellate Authority regarding denial of Cenvat Credit and interest is upheld.
6. So far as imposition of equivalent penalty upon the appellant is concerned, it is argued by appellant in Ground-E of the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant that 25% option of reduced penalty payment under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has not been extended to the appellant by the Adjudicating Authority under OIO dated 31.07.2009. On perusal of the records bench finds it so. Accordingly, appellant is extended the option of paying 25% reduced penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 subject to the condition that the same should be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed only to the extend indicated here in above.
(Operative Portion of the order was pronounced in the open court.) S/d.
(H.K.Thakur) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
SS
1
Appeal No.E/202/2012