Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Manmeet Ispat Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 22 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 22.4.2014
Appeal No. E/629/2012-EX(SM)
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 02/RPR/II/2012 dated 31.1.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Raipur)
For Approval & signature :
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter 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?
Manmeet Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Raipur Respondent
Appearance Shri H.V. Ghirnikar, C.A. - for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R. - for the respondent CORAM:Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.51731/2014 Per Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the lower authorities have confirmed the demand of Rs.9,06,518/- by denying the Cenvat credit to the appellant along with confirmation of demand of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount.
2. Ld. Advocate explains that out of the said credit, an amount of around Rs. 5 lakhs was availed in respect of various iron and steel items used as supporting structural. The law during the relevant period was not clear and was subsequently declared against the assessee by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global. The balance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is on account of the availment of credit of duty paid on the capital goods, which were physically not found in the factory premises.
3. Ld. Advocate however is not disputing the confirmation of duty demand but only the penalty amount. He submits that the entire duty was deposited before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and the interest was also deposited within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of the impugned order by Commissioner (Appeals). He further clarifies that inasmuch as no option to pay 25% penalty was extending to them by the authorities below, such option may please be granted to them by the Tribunal.
4. Inasmuch as there is no challenge to the confirmation of demand, I uphold the same along with upholding the interest amount. As regards penalty, I agree with the ld. Advocate that no such option was extended to the appellant, in which case the same can be extended by the appellate authorities. By following various High Courts decision, I extend such option to the appellant. If the appellant deposits 25% of the penalty amount within a period of 30 days from the Tribunals order, the penalty shall stand reduced to 25% of the duty amount. Otherwise the imposition of penalty to the extent to 100% is upheld.
5. Appeal is disposed in above terms.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM 2