Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Hindustan Unilever Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
1-2) Appeal Nos.EA-76189 & 76191/14
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.27/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/14 dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise(Appeals), Guwahati.)
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.Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Smt.Padmabati Patel, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S.Chatterjee, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue CORAM:
Honble Shri H.K.Thakur, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision :- 03.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement :- 03.05.2016 ORDER NO.FO/A/75339-75340/2016 Per Shri H.K.Thakur.
These Appeals have been filed by the Appellant with respect to Order-in-Appeal No.27/DIB/CE(A)/GHY/14 dated 30.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise(Appeals), Guwahati.
2. Smt.Padmabati Patel (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that a common Order-in-Appeal dated 01.07.2014 has been issued by the First Appellate Authority against two Orders-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority where issue involved is the same. That two separate show cause notices were issued to the Appellant for taking excess Cenvat Credit. That the details of excess credit taken were obtained from the Department and on realization that excess Cenvat Credit in fact was taken. That the entire amount of excess Cenvat Credit taken was paid by the Appellant along with interest. Ld.Advocate on behalf of the Appellant did not contest the issue on merits but argued that equivalent penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is not attracted as there is no intention to evade payment of duty. Alternately, it was the case of the Appellant that even if equivalent penalty is held to be imposable then also penalty should be reduced to 25% as no option of reduced penalty payment under Section 11AC was extended to the Appellant by the Adjudicating authority.
3. Shri S.S.Chatterjee, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that excess credit taken was detected as a result of intelligence gathered by the officers of Anti-Evasion Unit, Digboi and as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Appellant was required to take sufficient precautions while taking Cenvat Credit. That in this case Appellant took Cenvat Credit on the documents twice. It was his case that once an excess taking of Cenvat Credit was detected by the departmental officers, then penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC has been correctly imposed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether Appellant should be visited with equivalent penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the case of the Appellant that there is no intention to take excess credit and the same was paid as soon as pointed out by the department. It is observed from the case records that no reason whatsoever has been given by the Appellant explaining as to why excess credit was taken. On the other hand Cenvat Credit Rules expect an assessee taking Cenvat Credit to take sufficient precautions. Argument of the Appellant that there was no intention to take excess credit is not acceptable because no reason has been given as to why credits on the documents were taken twice. In the existing factual matrix this Bench is of the considered opinion that equivalent penalty was attracted. However, there is force in the argument of the Appellant that option of 25% reduced penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not extended by the Adjudicating authority. On perusal of the case records of these Appeals I find it so. Accordingly option of 25% reduced penalty is extended to the Appellant if the same is paid by the Appellant within 30(thirty) days of the receipt of this order.
5. Appeals filed by the Appellant are only allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.)
SD/
(H.K.THAKUR) MEMBER(TECHNICAL)
sm
4
Appeal No.EA-76189 & 76191/14