TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neutrality. - It is revealed from the Adjudication order that the appellant submitted the statement showing month-wise details of payment of duty from Cenvat account and PLA in respect of both the units during the material period. It is also recorded that the sister unit had paid more duty from the PLA than the Cenvat account. The appellant claimed that there is no suppression of the fact with intent to evade any payment of duty as it is a case of Revenue neutrality. The Adjudicating Authority observed that there is some merits in the argument of the appellant. Hence, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted - demand of duty alongwith the interest is upheld and the penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant company. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 8,70,596/- and Cenvat Credit of ₹ 15,13,014/- alongwith interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty and Cenvat Credit under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. It has also appropriated the entire amount of duty and Cenvat Credit alongwith interest as paid by the appellant. A penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was imposed on the Appellant No 2 under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rule 2002. By the impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellant company transferred the goods to their sister unit and paid the duty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Hero Honda Motors Ltd vs CCE, Meeret - 2011.273.ELT.89 (Tri. Del.) and in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Baba Asia Ltd - 2011.267.ELT.115 (Tri. Del.). 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Learned Advocate is not contesting the demand of duty, which they have already paid. The main contention of the Learned Advocate is that have paid duty and reversed the Credit, before issue of the show cause notice and the entire transaction is inter-unit stock transfer and therefore, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. It is also contended that the goods were transferred under the cover delivery challans and duly recorded in their register. Thus, it is not the case of cland ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority observed that there is some merits in the argument of the appellant. Hence, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, penalty is imposable for contravention of the Rules, for continuous period of three years. Penalty on the Appellant No 2, employee of the appellant company cannot be sustained. 8. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the demand of duty alongwith the interest is upheld and the penalty is reduced to ₹ 25,000/- on the appellant-company. The appeal filed by the Appellant No 2 is allowed. The appeal filed by the appellant is disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
