TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Appeal No. 621 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2014 - M. R. Shah And K. J. Thaker,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Y. N. Ravani ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice M. R. Shah) 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals as such they arise out of the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal ), all these appeals are decided and disposed by this common order. 2. It appears that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I initiated the proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) by issuing the showcause notice against the Company M/s. Doshion Ltd. and the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, 2004 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as CER, 2002 ) should not be imposed on them. 2.1 That the showcause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad1 and by order dated 15.12.2008, the adjudicating authority Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad1 dropped the recovery of Cenvat Credit of service tax involved on input services amounting to ₹ 44 ,01,429 /- being the credit pertaining to the Vatva Manufacturing Unit of the Company namely M/s. Doshion Ltd. The adjudicating authority also passed an order that the cenvat credit of service tax involved on input service amounting to ₹ 1 ,07,07,142 /- availed and utilized is to be recovered from the Company under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. The learned Tribunal has also set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority imposing the penalty upon the respondents herein imposed under Rule 26 of the CER, 2002. 2.3 That feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal insofar as allowing appeals preferred by the respondents herein individuals in deleting the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority imposed under Rule 26 of the CER, 2002, the common appellant herein Revenue has preferred the present tax appeals with the following proposed question of law. Whether the CESTAT is justified in setting aside the personal penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty. Shri Ravani , learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is not disputing that as such the order passed by the learned Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed against the Company, under Section 11AC of the Act, has been confirmed by this Court. 4. In view of the above, the present tax appeals against the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed upon the respective respondents herein imposed under Rule 26 of the Rules, 2002 also deserves to be dismissed. 4.1 At this stage it is required to be noted that as such while deleting the penalty imposed against the Company under Section 11AC of the Act by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for cenvat credit of ₹ 1 ,07,07,142 /- with interest and penalty equal to the same imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are set aside. 5. In view of the above, more particularly when the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal deleting the penalty imposed against the Company under Section 11AC of the Act has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by observing that there is no material to even prima facie suggest that there was any fraud or collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts or controversy of the provisions of the Act or the Rules on the part of the assessee with intent to evade payment of duty, all these appeals deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
