TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No. E/1711/2011-(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 56724/2013 - Dated:- 29-5-2013 - Mr. Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant: Bipin Garg, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, DR JUDGEMENT PER: MANMOHAN SINGH This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No.02-03/CE/Chd-I/2011 dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the trading of iron and steel products falling under chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are registered with Central Excise department for trading excisable goods. During the visit by Divi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. He accordingly upheld the portion of impugned order in original dated 20.7.2009 debarring the appellant from passing on the cenvat credit of Rs.2,14,483/- and imposing penalty of equal amount of Rs.2,14,483/- on the appellant and rejected the appeal of the appellant. He, however, also rejected the appeal of the department for imposition of penalty on Darbara Singh, partner of the appellant. 4. Ld.Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in denying the benefit of deposit 25% penalty within 30 days of the issue of show cause notice on the ground that the appellant are liable to penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules whereas this benefit is available under section 11AC. He submits that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the shortage of the said goods. By doing so, he contravened the provisions of Rule 10 and 11 of the rules. Thus, the appellant are liable to penalty under Rule 25 read with section 11AC. 6. I have examined the matter and have gone through the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). Regarding penalty, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed as follows:- Section 11AC of the Act for deposit of 25% of duty as penalty, it is observed that the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty under Rule 25 of the Rules read with section 11AC of the Act. It however is observed that section 11AC is invokable for short levy or non-levy of duty which is relevant to cases of manufacturers and not to the cases of the dealers, as the case of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
