9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow Cause Notice No. V/15-87-99/2003-Cx.Adj., dated 19-9-2003 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-IV Commissionerate, Chennai. 2. During final hearing held on 27-2-2006 the applicant company was represented by S/Shri Muthu Venkatraman, Advocate; B.C. Datta, DGM(Finance) and N. Balachandar, AM (Finance), while the Revenue was represented by Smt. Yamuna Devi, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Poonamallee Division and Shri S.C. Wilson, Superintendent, Poonamallee IV Range. 3. The facts of this case are set out in detail in the Admission Order No. 3/2006-C.Ex., dated 13-1-2006, and the subsequent Interim Order dated 27-2-2006. Briefly stated, the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of motor cars and parts a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve one to one co-relation for calculation of quantum of equivalent credit to be reversed. They have since devised a method of calculation based on system generated report so as to match the part numbers, purchase order data to pick the basic price/excise duty rate on the date of transactions. Departmental officers during their visit to the applicant's factory verified the connected input invoices and found that the credit availed on the duty paid by the vendors on 'tool cost' was omitted, duty on account of which was worked out to be Rs. 5,41,968/-. This error in the calculation was accepted by the applicant company and they have since paid this amount as well including the balance amount with reference to the SCN. Referring to the gap of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther intentional nor mala fide. The Advocate also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble CEGAT in the case of Stellar Chemical Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. & C.Ex., Vadodara - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 504 in order to support their contention for waiver of penalty when there was sufficient balance in RG 23 account. Referring to this and following the same logic interest should not be charged, the Advocate pleaded. From the Revenue side it was argued that the applicant company had been carrying on the trading activities within the factory without the permission of the Commissioner and they have reversed the credit only after detection by the department and accordingly penalty and interest should be imposed. In pursuance of the direction given in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period in question the applicant has kept credit balance of Rs. 6 crores in RG 23 account, the request for immunities for interest and penalty deserves favourable considerations. 6. Accordingly, taking into account the above facts as mentioned supra this case is settled under Section 32 F(7) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 subject to the following terms and conditions :- (I) The duty liability is settled at Rs. 1,22,71,338/-. Since this has already been paid no further duty is payable. (II) Immunity from interest, penalty and prosecution is also granted to the applicant as requested. 7. The above immunity/immunities is/are granted in terms of Section 32K(1) of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
