Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 207 - CESTAT MUMBAIClandestine removal - M/s. PEPL had taken modvat credit of the said raw material - Held that: - the appellants have admittedly manufactured and cleared the goods to PEPL without any documents and without payment of Central Excise Duty the appellants have cleared without M/s. PEPL had paid the duty on the same and in support of said argument. They have submitted the RT 12 returns of M/s. PEPL Ld. Counsel has argued that M/s. PEPL does not have manufacturing facility for the said transformers and therefore the duty paid by PEPL should be considered to be the duty paid by the appellant. The RT.12 return submitted do not by any where show how the goods cleared by the appellant can be treated as the same on which M/s. PEPL has paid the duty. No co-relation has been presented and in absence of the said co-relation the argument can only be rejected. In so far as demand of reversal of Cenvat Credit on clearance of 10,45,600 numbers by capacitors on which modvat credit was availed as inputs is concerned, the appellant have already reversed. This reversal however happened after a case was booked. In this regard we find the impugned order rightly confirmed the demand of reversal of cenvat credit. Confiscation of 89,800 Electrical Transformers which were seized from the premises of PEPL - Held that: - The said goods were offered for release on redemption on payment of fine of ₹ 90,000/-. Since the goods were the cleared without payment of duty, the same are rightly been confiscated. The fine imposed in such circumstances is justified. Penalty u/r 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that: - there is sufficient cause for imposition of such penalty and uphold the same. Personal penalty of ₹ 50,000/- each has been imposed on Shri R.N. Garodia and Shri Arun N. Garodia. We find that these persons had acted in violation of Central Excise Rules and Act. The penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed on them is upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|