Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Century Rayon Twisting Unit vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Thane I on 21 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Application No. E/S/861/11
In
Appeal No. E/778/11
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SB/79/TH-I/2011 dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
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 Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Century Rayon Twisting Unit
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellant Shri B.S. Meena, Addl.Comm (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 21-06-2013 Date of decision : 21-06-2013 O R D E R No:..
Heard both sides.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant closed down their unit in the year 2007. Thereafter an audit took place and objections were raised on certain capital goods. Appellant reversed the CENVAT credit which was transferred to the other unit and informed the department. Thereafter one year later a show-cause notice was issued for demand of duty along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC was proposed. Matter was adjudicated, duty demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was imposed. The said order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who also confirmed the same. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant is before me.
3. Considering the submission made by both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that as audit raised the objection, appellant immediately reversed the CENVAT credit and show-cause notice was issued after one year. In these circumstances, as appellant has complied with the audit objection immediately, penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 15 of the CCR 2004 is not warranted and accordingly, same is dropped. However, the interest for the intervening period is confirmed.
4. In these terms, appeal as well as stay application are disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) //SR 2