Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S Vardhman Spinning & General Mills ... on 18 March, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 18/03/2015. DATE OF DECISION : 18/03/2015. Excise Appeal Nos. 1023-1024 of 2006 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 15/Ldh/2005 dated 08/04/2005 passed by The Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) 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 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? CCE, Ludhiana Appellant Versus M/s Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd.] Respondent
Shri Deepinder Singh, Authorised Signatory] Appearance Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Appellant.
Shri Rupendra Singh, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 50911-50912/2015 Dated : 18/03/2015 Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 15/Ldh/2005 dated 08/04/05 had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 11,27,06,058/- against the respondent company in respect of period from March 1999 to April 2002 by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith interest thereon under Section 11AB and besides this, had imposed penalty of Rs. 2,59,15,371/- on the respondent under Section 11AC. In the same order the Commissioner had also directed that the respondent would be eligible for Cenvat credit of Rs. 8,67,90,687/-. Though in the show cause notice there was a proposal for imposition of penalty on Shri Deepinder Singh, Authorised Signatory of the respondent company, but the Commissioner by the above order did not imposed any penalty on him.
1.1 Against the above order of the Commissioner, both the respondent as well as the Revenue filed appeals. The respondent filed appeal challenging the confirmation of the duty demand alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. The Revenue filed appeal on the grounds that
(a) the Cenvat credit admissible to the respondent would be much lower;
(b) since the duty demand confirmed is Rs. 11,27,06,058/- the penalty of equal amount should have been imposed under Section 11AC and not of the difference between the duty confirmed and the Cenvat credit admissible ; and
(c) Commissioners decision not to impose penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Shri Deepinder Singh, Authorised Signatory of the respondent company is also not correct and some penalty should have imposed on him also.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri M.S. Negi, the learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal.
4. However, Shri Rupendra Singh, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that in respect of the appeal against the same order of the Commissioner filed by the respondent, the Tribunal vide final order No. 441/2007-EX dated 24/07/07 reported in 2008 (223) E.L.T. 445 (Tri. Del.) has set aside the entire duty demand of Rs. 11,27,06,058/- confirmed against the respondent on the ground of time bar and had also set aside the interest and penalty and that in view of this, the Revenues appeal would also not survive.
5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. The Commissioner by the impugned order by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 11,27,06,058/- against the respondent alongwith interest on it under Section 11AB and has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,59,15,371/- on the respondent under Section 11AC. The Commissioner had also allowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 8,67,90,687/- and the penalty imposed under Section 11AC was the difference between the duty demand and the Cenvat credit admissible. It is seen that the appeal filed by the respondent against this order of the Commissioner has been allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment mentioned above and the entire order of the Commissioner has been set aside. In view of this, the Revenues appeal seeking reduction in the quantum of Modvat credit available, enhancement in quantum of imposition of penalty and seeking the imposition of penalty on Shri Deepinder Singh, Authorised Signatory under Rule 208A would also not survive. The same are, therefore, dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
4