Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Empric Tools & Components vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iv on 24 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 24.03.2014
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/123/2012-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.157/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2011, dated 31.10.2011, passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-IV]
M/s. Empric Tools & Components Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Delhi-IV Respondents
Appearance Shri KK Sharma, Advocate - for the appellants Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the respondents CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.51236, dated 24.03.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
The challenge in the present appeal is to imposition of penalty of Rs.2,35,439/- (Rupees two lakh thirty five thousand four hundred and thirty nine only) upon the appellants under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the violation of provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, i.e., non-deposit of duty in cash as against payments made from CENVAT credit.
2. After hearing both the sides, I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal as confirmed by various Honble High Courts. It stands held that in such a scenario, the provisions of Rule 27 would apply, for the purpose of imposition of penalty. One such reference can be made to the decision of Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.)] and the decision of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CCE, Faridabad Vs. Condor Power Products P. Ltd. [2010 (250) ELT 858 (P&H)]. References can also be made to the following decisions of the Tribunal:-
(i) Tribunals Final Order No.1318/2012-SM(BR), dated 05.09.2012.
(ii) CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Anjani Portland Cement Indus. Ltd. [2011 (266) ELT 343 (Tri.-Bang.)].
(iii) Shaligram Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2009 (244) ELT 570 (Tri.-Ahmd.)].
(iv) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.. [2010 (262) ELT 335 (Tri.-Del.)].
(v) CCE, Allahabad Vs. RK Cigarettes (P) Ltd. [2007 (213) ELT 367 (Tri.-Del.)].
It stands held that all the above decisions that in case of default of payment of duty in terms of Rule 8(a), the penalty is impossible under Rule 27, which prescribes the maximum penalty of Rs.5,000/- .
3. As such, by following the above decisions, I reduce the penalty to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). But for the above modification in the quantum of penalty, the appeal is otherwise rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-