Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vishal Transformers & Switchgears P. ... vs Cce, Meerut-I on 28 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 28.3.2014
Appeal No. E/2197/2010-EX(SM)
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 295-CE/APPL/MRT-I/2009-10 dated 31.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I)
For Approval & signature :
Honble Ms. 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?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Vishal Transformers & Switchgears P. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate - for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R. - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 51358/2014 Per Archana Wadhwa :
The challenge in the present appeal is to confirmation of demand of duty of Rs.2,10,429/- on the findings of clandestine removal, which in turn are based upon the shortages of inputs detected at the time of visit of the officers.
2. Without going into the detailed facts of the case, I find that Commissioner (Appeals) while considering the issue of imposition of penalty has observed as under :
On the issue of imposition of penalty on account of the alleged shortage in stock of cenvatable inputs, I find that although the appellants admitting such shortage have deposited the amount of duty involved, but there is no evidence on record to suggest any clandestine removal of the alleged short found inputs. Also, it is not a case where any duty of excise has not been paid by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of law with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be invoked.
3. The identical observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been the subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal. In the case of M/s Forebros Tools Pvt. Ltd. , Tribunal vide its Final Order No. A/50848/2013-EX(SM) dated 3.3.2014 observed that when the Revenue has accepted setting aside the penalty, and in the absence of any evidence of clandestine removal, demand is not sustainable. By following the said decision, I set aside the confirmation of demand of duty and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM* 1