CCE Ahmedabad Vs. M/s India Textiles on 03 October, 2007

0
13

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD

CCE Ahmedabad Vs. M/s India Textiles

CORAM: MR. M. VEERAIYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing: 03.10.07

Date of Decision: 03.10.07

ORDER No. /WZB/AHD/2007

Per: Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)

This is a Departments appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 148-149/2006(Ahd-I),dt.27.7.06.

2.1. Heard both sides.

2.2. The learned SDR submited that the input on which the credit has been taken was removed clandestinely without reversal of the credit/payment of duty; such clandestine removal has been admitted by the party and the duty involved paid. The original authority has rightly imposed the penalty equivalent to the duty evaded. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty on extraneous grounds. He seeks restoration of the penalty as imposed by the original authority.

2.2 The learned Charted Accountant appearing for the respondent supports the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the leniency has been shown in similar cases as could be seen in the case of M/s Malbro Appliances (P) Ltd as reported in 2007 (208) ELT 503 (Del.) 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. This is a case where the inputs on which the credit has been taken has been clandestinely removed without payment of duty/reversing the credit involved. This has been brought out only in the investigation by the department. The intention to evade is clear from the conduct of the respondent. The payment of duty after detection of case does not justify any immunity from penalty. The reason cited for reducing the penalty is really extraneous. Therefore, setting aside the penalty in to-to is no warranted. However, it is noticed that in similar circumstances, Honble High Court of Delhi has upheld reduced penalty of 25% of duty evaded in case of CCE Vs. Malbro Appliances (P) Ltd. cited supra.

5. In the light of the above and taking lenient view in regard to the quantum of penalty, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in so far as the same relates to setting aside the penalty on the respondent. However, while restoring the order of the original authority relating to imposition of penalty, I reduce the penalty to Rs.10,832/-from Rs.43,327/-.

6. Appeal is partly allowed as above.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here