Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Drytech Processors (I) Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal on 27 April, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Excise Appeal No.E/2272/08-SM
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.121/BPL/2008 dated 5.08.2008 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Bhopal)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.M.Veeraiyan, 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 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?
M/s.Drytech Processors (I) Pvt.Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Present for the Appellant: None Present for the Respondent: Shri S.k.Bhaskar, DR Coram: Honble Mr.M.Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/decision: 27.04.2011 ORDER NO._______________ PER: M.VEERAIYAN Heard learned DR. None appears for the appellants.
2. The original authority based on the audit objection, denied the credit of Rs.25,505/- in respect of corrugated boxes on the ground that the appellants have not produced the relevant documents. He also imposed penalty of Rs.25,505/- under Rule 15(1) of Cevant Credit Rules, 2004 and another penalty of Rs.25,505/- under Rule 15(2) of Cevant Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority.
3. On perusal of the grounds of appeal and other records, it is clear that the appellants were not able to produce the relevant documents and sought for benefit of credit on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The original authority, in the said circumstances was right in denying the credit as burden to prove eligibility of cenvat credit is on the appellants. However, he has not given any valid reason to impose penalty under Rule 15(1) and Rule 15(2) of Cevant Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also not given any finding as to why he has upheld the penalties.
4. In view of the above, denial of credit of Rs.25,505/- and consequent order of recovery of the same alongwith interest is upheld. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case finding no justification for sustaining penalty, I set aside the penalty in total.
Pronounced in the open court) (M.VEERAIYAN) MEMEBR (TECHNICAL) mk 3