Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Kamal Sponze Steel & Power Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal on 8 November, 2016

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.



      Date of Hearing/Decision: 8.11.2016	                                                        



Appeal No.  E/2046/2009-EX(DB)



(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 172/BPL/2009 dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),  Central Excise, Bhopal)

                                                                                                                                                                                        

M/s Kamal Sponze Steel & Power Ltd.                                                    Appellant



	 	                                           Vs.



CCE, Bhopal                                                                                                 Respondent

Appearance Shri P.C. Kashiv, Advocate - for the appellant Shri G.R. Singh, D.R. - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Final Order No.55040/2016 Per Justice Dr. Satish Chandra:

This is an appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 172/BPL/2009 dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)

2. Heard Shri P.C. Kashiv, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri G.R. Singh, ld. AR for the Revenue.

3. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products out of the raw material Iron Ore purchased from the market. The assessee has made the sale to the Jaipur unit i.e. less than 5% of the total sale. There was a difference in the valuation. After selling the same the appellant had deposited the duty as well as the interest of Rs. 5 lakhs.

4. From the record, it appears that the mistake occurred due to mis-calculation by the Chartered Accountant. Later, Cost Accountant worked out valuation implication and as contained short payment of duty. In the instant case, the duty as well as interest were deposited. As there was no loss to the exchequer, no malafide has been proved in the instant case. When it is so, then we find no reason to levy the penalty of Rs.13,62,081/-. Hence we set aside the impugned order to the effect that the duty and interest are confirmed but penalty is dropped. The assessee will get the relief accordingly.

5. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.

(Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (Ashok K. Arya) Member (Technical) RM 1