Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sargam Metals Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 September, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/528/07
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.54/2007 (M-IV) dated 23.5.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
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 Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Sargam Metals Pvt. Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri N.Viswanathan, Advocate Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 1.9.2009 Date of decision : 1.9.2009 Final Order No.____________ Heard both sides. Shri N.Viswanathan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that part of the impugned goods were supplied by the appellants to their own unit at another location and part of the goods were supplied under bond for use in ship repairs. In respect of the quantity sent to the appellants second unit, the duty was paid after calculating the cost and the appellants were under the bona fide belief that general administrative overheads is not required to be included in such costing. As regards the second quantity, the appellants supplied the same under bond for ship repair and were of the bona fide belief that no reversal of the MODVAT credit against such supply is required to be done. He further states that the appellants submitted the statutory returns and statements from time to time for the impugned period 2003-06. Subsequently, when the departmental authorities pointed out that they are required to pay duty for clearances to their second unit including the general administrative overheads and that for supply for ship repairs without payment of duty, they are required to reverse an amount of 8%/10%, the appellants have promptly paid the necessary amounts along with interest without challenging the departments contention either on the ground of time bar or otherwise. He further states that late payment of the impugned amounts were occasioned purely on account of bona fide belief of the appellants and was not on account of any misstatement or suppression of facts. Hence, he pleads that imposition of equal penalty is not justifiable and the same should be set aside.
2. I have heard ld. DR Ms.Indira Sisupal. She vehemently argues that the appellants never brought to the notice of the department that they are not maintaining separate accounts and that they are not required to pay 8%/10% on the exempted clearance and that they have not included the general administrative overheads while computing the assessable value of clearance to their second unit.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of the case records, I find force in the contention made on behalf of the appellants. Their submission that they have been submitting periodical returns and they were not told earlier to make good the short payment is in favour of the appellants. Hence, taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the appellants by ld. advocate that they are not disputing the duty and interest liability which has already been paid, I set aside the penalty amount imposed on them under the impugned order. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER gs 2