Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Acc Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 7 November, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21970-21971 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: E/877/2009-SM, E/878/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.279/2009 dated 03/07/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore.] ACC LTD, WADI DISRICT, GULBARGA. KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BELGAUM NO.71, CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM 590 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. R. G. Utagikar, Authorised Representative No.162/19A, Railway Lines, Jawahir Apartment, Solarpur 413 001.
For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 07/11/2014 Date of Decision: 07/11/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
In both the appeals the issue involved is common and both the appeals are taken up together. I find from the impugned order that the Commissioner (A) has upheld the imposition of penalty but has set aside the interest on the ground that credit availed by the appellant had not been utilized. In this case, the appellant had taken 100% of the duty paid on capital goods on receipt of the same in spite of 50% in the first year and the balance in the next year. The demand for interest has been set aside by the Commissioner (A) and Revenue has not challenged the same. As regards penalty, learned counsel submitted that it was a bona fide mistake and mandatory penalty equal to the CENVAT credit availed has been imposed and he also submitted that in the show-cause notice specific Rule under which penalty was proposed was not indicated and during that time Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules had as many as 5 sub-rules. He submits that original authority had imposed penalty under Rule 15(1) which prescribes the minimum penalty of Rs.10,000/- but does not describes the mistake.
2. Learned AR submits that appellant is a big company and they should have followed the law properly and availment of 100% credit was wrong.
3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Even though learned counsel submitted that the appellant had more than Rs.4 cores as balance in the CENAT credit account and the credit had not been utilized and reversed within four months of the availment and therefore penalty need not be imposed. I find that having regard to the size of the company and the requirement of the law that the scheme is one of self-assessment and therefore it is the responsibility of the assessee to ensure that credit is taken correctly. I consider that this is not a fit case for waiver of penalty totally. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I consider that in each case, penalty imposed has to be reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Appeals are decided in above terms.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2