Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Shayona Pulp Conversion Mills P. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 November, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
E/1206 to 1217/09
- Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. AGS/(181)91/09 dated 07.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
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 Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
M/s. Shayona Pulp conversion Mills P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant Shri S. Dewalvar, (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 03-11-2014 Date of decision : 03-11-2014 O R D E R No:..
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand has been confirmed against the appellant for contravention of Rule 8(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 as the appellant defaulted in monthly payments on due date.
2. Today when the matter was called, it was found that on last date of hearing, the appellant has prayed for disposal of the appeal on merits as they have already filed written submissions on 29.09.2014. The ld. AR submits that he is written to the department whether the order of BIFR has been accepted by the department or not.
3. Considered the submissions made by the ld. AR.
4. On perusal of the record, I find that the written submissions were filed by the appellant on 29.09.2014 stating that the unit has applied before the BIFR and BIFR has granted them relief in respect of applicability of provisions of Rule 8(3), 3(a) and 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 vide order dated 28.07.2011. In these circumstances, it is prayed on behalf of the appellant that as they have paid the entire amount of duty, therefore, waiver of penalties be granted. As contended by the appellant that they have already paid the duty in dispute, either through PLA or through Cenvat credit account and as unit has gone in BIFR, therefore penalty is not imposable. With regard to the decision in Metal Box India Ltd. 2003 (155) ELT 13 (SC) relied by the ld. AR in that case, the stay application was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court and issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court was of pre-deposit of duty amount. In this case, the appellant is seeking the relief of dropping the penalty, therefore, the case law relied by the ld. AR have no application to facts of this case. In this case, as duty has already been paid, and the unit has gone in BIFR, in these circumstances, the imposition of penalty is set aside.
5. With these terms, appeals are disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) //SR 3