Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Hindusthan National Glass & ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal Nos.EA-76403-76404/14
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.206/KOL-IV/2014 & 207/KOL-IV/2014 both dated 31.07.2014 and both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Kolkata-III.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE SHRI H.K.THAKUR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
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
CESTAT(Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s.Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Kanodia, C.A. for the Appellant (s) Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue (s) CORAM:
Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision :- 08.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement :- 08.07.2016 ORDER NO.FO/A/75478-75479/2016 Per Shri H.K.Thakur.
These Appeals have been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Appeal Nos.206/KOL-IV/2014 & 207/KOL-IV/2014 both dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Kolkata-III as First Appellate Authority.
2. Shri Ankit Kanodia (C.A.) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that issue involved is regarding taking of Cenvat Credit on M.S.Channels, M.S. Joist, Angles, Plates, M.S.Angles, H.S. Plates, Electrods etc. used in the installation of plant as capital goods. That Appellant paid the entire amount of Cenvat Credit and interest to buy peace when on merit the issue was contestable. He relied upon the case law Sanghvi Forging & Engineering Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodora-II [2014 (302) ELT 136 (Tri.-Ahmd.)], Vinayak Steels Ltd. vs. CC & CE, Hyderabad-III [2014 (300) ELT 93 (Tri.-Bang.)] and Ravasco Transmission & Packaging Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi [2013 (292) ELT 441 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] where similar credit was allowed. That in view of the following case laws no penalty is imposable.:-
(i) CCE & Cus., Aurangabad vs. Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
[2015 (327) ELT 429 (Tri.- Mum.)]
(ii) Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. vs. CCE, Coimbatore [2013 (297) ELT 217 (Tri.-Chennai)]
3. Shri A.Roy, Supdt.(AR) reiterated the findings of the First Appellate Authority. It was his case that the items on which credit was taken are not covered within the definition of capital goods given in Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and penalty has been correctly imposed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2014 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is imposable upon the Appellant. The entire amount of Cenvat Credit along with interest has been paid by the appellant. In view of the case laws relied upon by the Appellant conflicting views were expressed by Courts on this issue. Accordingly, these proceedings are not fit cases for imposing penalties upon the Appellant. Accordingly, penalties imposed upon the Appellant are set aside.
5. Appeals filed by the Appellant are allowed only to the extent indicated in para-4 above.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.)
SD
(H.K.THAKUR) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
sm
3
Appeal No.EA-76403-76404/14