Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Sail vs Cce, Ranchi on 21 August, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA Excise Appeal No. 582 of 2007 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 79/Ran/2007 dated 21.08.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi) DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2017 DATE OF DECISION : 21.08.2017 M/s SAIL . Appellants (Rep by Sh. Ravi Raghwan, Adv.) VERSUS CCE, Ranchi . Respondent
(Rep. by Sh. A. Roy, DR) CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. FO/76664/2017 PER JUSTICE (Dr.) SATISH CHANDRA :
The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 79/Ran/2007 dated 21.08.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ranchi. The period in dispute is July 2000 to March 2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel. For the under-valuation of the stock, the Department levied penalty under Section 11-AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeal.
3. With this background, we have heard Shri Ravi Raghwan, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellant and Shri A. Roy, learned DR for the Revenue.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel submits that the duty was paid before the issuance of the show cause notice. To support his arguments, he relied upon the ratio of the following case laws :
(i) Commissioner vs Rakesh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (320) ELT a-352 (All); and
(ii) National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs CCE, Final Order No. 55568/2017.
5. On the other hand, the learned DR justifies the impugned order.
6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, it appears that an identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of National Engg. Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein the Tribunal has relied upon the ratio laid down in the case of Arora Products vs Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2009 (235) ELT 818 (Raj.), wherein it was observed that on combined reading of provisions of Sections 11A(2B) and 2(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and in view of the fact that duty leviable has already been deposited prior to the show cause notice, no penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC.
7. By following our earlier decisions (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants with consequential relief, if any.
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court) \ (V. PADMANABHAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) (JUSTICE (Dr.) SATISH CHANDRA) PRESIDENT Golay 1 A.No. E/582/17