9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs.10,000/- sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent M/s.Metal Formers is a proprietary concern of Smt. Sumitra Devi Ratra which was functioning from plot No.56C/5, Industrial Area, Faridabad and they were registered with the excise authorities. Shri Sanjiv Ratra, son of Smt. Sumitra Devi Ratra is authorized signatory of the firm. It is claimed that with effect from 1.10.2004, a partnership was constituted with Shri Sanjiv Ratra and Smt. Sumitra Devi Ratra as partners. It is also claimed that the premises at plot No.56C/5, Industrial Area, Faridabad required to be vacated as the lease period has expired. The finished goods, raw mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoked. He also erred in reducing penalties and redemption fine. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. reported in 1996 (82) ELT 441 (SC) to support his contention that mere mentioning of wrong provisions of law is not fatal to imposition of penalty. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent firm and the appellant Shri Sanjiv Ratra submits that it was a case of mere transfer of the business to another premises. The change of proprietary concern to partnership concern was duly intimated. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the department and in fact there is no justification for confiscating the finished goods, r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing confiscation and penalty in this regard is without merits. 7.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that the said rule was not invoked in the show cause notice. On perusal of the show cause notice with the assistance of the DR, I do not find specific allegation of removal of inputs on which the credit has been taken. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held there was no invocation of Rule 15(1) and therefore penalty cannot be sustained. 7.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, involving claim of the change of premises and claim of change in the constitution of the firm, the leniency shown by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
