Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Marigold Paints Pvt. Ltd. (Sub Chem ... vs C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I on 21 August, 2017
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/13881-13886/2014-SM [Arising out of OIA No.VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-439 to 444/14-15 dated 22.09.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara] M/s Marigold Paints Pvt. Ltd. (Sub Chem Division) Appellant Marigold Paints Pvt. Ltd. Digvijay Chudasama Kapil D. Mittal Vs C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Sh. Anand Nainawati (Advocate) For Respondent: Sh. G. jha, A.R. CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/decision:21.08.2017 Final Order No. A/ 11987-11992 /2017 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These appeals are filed challenging the Order-in- Appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-439 to 444/14-15 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Vadodara-I.
2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that as far as Appeal No. E/13881/2014 ofM/s Marigold Paints Pvt. Ltd. (Sub Chem Division) and Appeal No. E/13882/2014 of Marigold Paints Pvt. Ltd. are concerned the appellants had paid the entire cenvat credit of Rs.3,24,890/- and Rs.4,82,345/-,respectively before issuance of the Show Cause Notice. It is his contention that after the Show Cause Notice was adjudicated they deposited 25% of the penalty in accordance with the Provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has disallowed the said benefit on the ground that interest on the confirmed duty had not been paid by them within 30 days from the date of the adjudication order. It is his contention that the duty was paid during the course of investigation, and there was no quantification of the interest in adjudication order, nor any communication about the interest liability was issued to them thereafter. Therefore, the interest amount could not be quantified and paid along with penalty, hence benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty be allowed to them. As far as other appellants are concerned, the Ld. Advocate imposition of personal penalty of Rs.3.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the respective appellants are disproportionate, hence, may be reduced.
3. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. I find that while confirming the demand and imposing penalty, the appellant has not been communicated the amount of interest required to be paid against the duty deposited during the course of investigation. Also, the Revenue could not place any communication addressed to the appellant indicating the interest amount to be paid by them after the adjudication order was passed. In these circumstances, in my view, denial of discharging the benefit of discharging 25% of penalty imposed in the impugned Order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to quantify the interest amount and communicate to the appellants so that they could discharge the same and comply with the Provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 in availing the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed/confirmed. Also, I find force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate for the appellants that the penalty imposed on the directors and excise clerks are disproportionate. Accordingly, keeping in mind the overall circumstances of the case, including duty confirmed, the same are reduced to Rs.25000/- in case of each of the appellants under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The impugned order is modified to this extent and appeals are disposed of, accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Neha 3 | Page E/13881-13886/2014-SM