Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sarunda Polymers vs C.C.E., Jaipur-I on 14 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 14.03.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/2847/2011-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.216-217(DKV)CE/JPR-I/2011, dated 04.08.2011 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Jaipur-I]
M/s. Sarunda Polymers Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Jaipur-I Respondents
Appearance Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the Appellants Shri RK Mishra, DR - for the Respondents CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.51189, dated 14.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of copper wire and enamelled copper wires as also stranded wires. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 30.01.2010, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, shortage in the raw-materials, i.e., copper and copper rod to the extent of 09.130 MT was detected. The appellants accepted the said shortages and also reversed the CENVAT credit of Rs.2,70,833/- (Rupees two lakh seventy thousand eight hundred and thirty three only).
2. Statement of the proprietor, Shri Vijay Jhanwar was recorded, wherein he accepted the shortages and submitted that as they have not reconciled their raw-materials stock position for quite some time, he is not able to give any reasons for such shortages. Based upon the above, proceedings were initiated against the appellants for confirmation of duty and penalty. The Show Cause Notice resulted in passing of the order by the original adjudicating authority vide which he appropriated the duty already deposited by the appellants and also imposed penalty of identical amount. The said order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.
3. The contention of the Ld. Advocate representing the appellants is that it is a case of alleged shortages and not a case of clandestine removal. Though they have serious grievance about the manner in which the stock taking, but they are not disputing the duty reversal so as to avoid the litigation. Tribunal in a number of decisions has held that in such a scenario, imposition of penalty upon the appellants is not justified.
4. After hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellants are not contesting the reversal of the CENVAT credit. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. As regards penalty, it is seen that Tribunal in plethora of judgements has held that mere shortages in the raw-materials do not support the Revenues allegation of clandestine removal, merely because the appellants have chosen to pay the duty on the short found goods. References can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Puran Sons Alloys P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2013 (291) ELT 65 (Tri.-Del.)] and in the case of CCE, Meerut-I Vs. Sarvottam Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. [2013 (297) ELT 385 (Tri.-Del.)].
5. By following the said decisions, while confirming the demand of duty as not contested, I set aside the imposition of penalty upon the appellants and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-