Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Raipur vs Jai Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd on 28 February, 2013
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 28.2.2013 Central Excise Appeal No.1750 of 2010 Arising out of the order in appeal No.39/RPR-I/2010 dated 4.2.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise , Raipur. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes C.C.E., Raipur .. Appellant Vs. Jai Ambey Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. . Respondents
Appearance:
Shri R.K. Mathur, A.R. for the appellant Revenue Shri Vinay Jain, Advocate for the respondents Coram: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Final Order No. 55664/2013 Per Mr. S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. This appeal is being taken up for hearing in pursuance of the order passed by the Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Tax Appeal No.72/2012 vide order dated 21.11.2012.
3. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent had paid full duty demanded in the show cause notice along with interest and also penalty of 25% of the duty demanded within 30 days of the receipt of adjudication order. Proceedings contemplated in the show cause notice stand concluded.
4. The case of Revenue is that the proceedings issued under show cause notice are not complete in view of the provisions of Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Revenue is also challenging the impugned order on the ground that the goods were clandestinely cleared, cum benefit of duty is not available to the respondents.
6. The respondents pointed out that the Revenue filed appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of Shri Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Director of the respondent company. The proceedings against Nirmal Agrawal were also initiated by the same show cause notice and the Tribunal held that respondent had paid duty along with interest and 25% of the penalty within the stipulated period under Section 11(2) of the Central Excise Act. Hence, the proceedings issued under Show cause notice are to be treated as closed.
7. In the present case, the Revenues main contention is that the proceedings under Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act are not concluded. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that duty along with interest and 25% of penalty has been paid within the stipulated period under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944. This finding is not under challenge in the appeal. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention of the Revenue that proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not concluded. Further I find that the Tribunal in the case of Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Director of the respondent company against whom the proceedings were initiated with the same show cause notice vide order dated 11.6.2012 in appeal No.E/978/2010 held that proceedings under Section 11A(2) are to be treated as closed.
8. In respect of cum-duty benefit I find that the duty has been confirmed against the respondent, therefore, the respondent are entitled to cum-duty benefit and held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Delhi vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. reported in 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). I find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly, dismissed.
(S.S. Kang) Vice President scd/ 1