Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Mipco Seamless Rings (Guj) Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... on 31 March, 2004
ORDER K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. The appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts are as follows.
2. The appellant succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from the Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as, out of the denial of modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 97,149/-, by the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted the admissibility of credit to the extent of Rs. 90,000/- and inadmissible amount was reduced to Rs. 7,149/-. However, while passing the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not disturb the penalty of Rs. 60,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority. This penalty of Rs. 60,000/- retained by the Commissioner (Appeals) in that order was never challenged by the appellants. The said amount of Rs. 60,000/- was recovered from the appellants by appropriating the same from the amount of Rs. 90,000/- sanctioned as refund to the appellants. The appellants had moved an appeal against such appropriation to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected the appellant's appeal. Hence, the instant appeal to the Tribunal.
3. Heard both sides.
4. It is an admitted position that, though the appellants managed to get a favourable order in the matter of reduction in the amount of inadmissible modvat credit from Rs. 97,149/- to Rs. 7,149/-, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not make a corresponding reduction in the amount of penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. In the absence of any appeal against the confirmation of the amount of penalty of Rs. 60,000/-, even though excessive as the appellants prefer to claim, the said order has become final and the amount of Rs. 60,000/- was therefore legally recoverable from the appellants. Hence, the recovery of the said amount of Rs. 60,000/- by the concerned Assistant Commissioner was correct in law and the said recovery did not call for any interference by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the instant appeal field by the appellants is without any merit and accordingly the same is rejected.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)