Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Ilijin Automotive Pvt. Ltd on 13 April, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/19/2003 & E/CO/5/03
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.25/2001 dated 1.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
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 authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Appellant/s
Versus
Ilijin Automotive Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR Shri M.Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 13.4.2010 Date of decision : 13.4.2010 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of over Rs.1 crore and also imposed a penalty of equal amount on the ground that the assessees have wrongly availed credit to the above extent that demand was set aside by the Tribunal. In the same order, he has also confirmed a demand of Rs.5,61,959/- holding that assessees were guilty of undervaluation of the goods by non-amortization of the cost of the capital goods in the components manufactured by them and supplied to M/s.HMIL. He has however refrained from imposing any penalty on this score. It is against non-imposition of penalty that the Revenue is in appeal before us.
2. We have heard both sides. We find force in the submission of the ld.SDR that once the demand of Rs.5,61,959/- has been confirmed which is obviously confirmed under the first proviso to Section 11A(1), it means that the element of suppression has been established. The Commissioner, therefore, had no option but to impose equal amount of penalty on the charge of undervaluation, under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1044. We, therefore, agree with the Revenue that penalty of Rs.5,61,959/- is imposable upon the assessees. However, we do not find any reason to accept the prayer of the Revenue for imposition of penalty also under Rule 173Q. The prayer of the Revenue for payment of interest by the assessees on the above mentioned amount of Rs.5,61,959/- is also accepted as the provisions of Section 11AB are automatically attracted in the present case. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above.
3. The cross-objection of the respondents is in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenues appeal and is therefore dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
2