TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GH COURT], appears to be applicable to the facts of this case but this judgment has not been considered by the Commissioner and he decided the matter Ex-parte. In any case we do not find any justification as to how the penalty of ₹ 50 lakh can be imposed on the appellant company under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule 2002, the maximum penalty imposable under which is only 5000/-.The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for denovo adjudication after hearing the appellant and also keeping in view the judgment of hon ble Madras high Court in the case of Rajshree Sugar and Chemicals Ltd.(Supra). - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. E/51999/2014 -Ex[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory to a joint venture, the Cenvat credit in the account of Excel Fibre Division at the time of merger would lapse and the same could not be utilized for payment of duty. It is on this basis that after issued of the Show Cause Notice,the Commissioner vide order in Original dated 28.01.2014 confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of ₹ 14,11,14,058/- against the Appellant company along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rule read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act,1944 and also penalty of ₹ 50 Lakh under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002. Against this order of the Commissioner this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Heard both the sides. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. There is no dispute that the impugned order is an Ex-parte order passed without hearing the appellant. Prima Facie, we also find that the judgment of Honble Madras High Court in the case of CCE Madurai vs Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2014 (299) ELT 277 (Mad), appears to be applicable to the facts of this case but this judgment has not been considered by the Commissioner and he decided the matter Ex-parte. In any case we do not find any justification as to how the penalty of ₹ 50 lakh can be imposed on the appellant company under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule 2002, the maximum penalty imposable under which is only 5000/-.The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
