9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is engaged in manufacture of cement and is availing the facility of CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs. The appellants imported 18,595.13 MTs of pet coke vide Bill of Entry No. 407640 dated 13.01.2010 and cleared goods on appropriate payment of duty. A quantity of 1105-800 MTs was cleared by appellant to another customer directly from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ularly availed credit, along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty, besides imposing separate penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on Vice President Sh. GNVSSR Kumar and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Sh. M. Rama Chandra, Deputy Manager of Excise of appellant. The appellant carried the issue in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order impugned herein set aside the penalty imposed on the Vice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to evade payment of duty and there is no revenue loss. It was only a procedural mistake committed by appellant. Further, that the import of pet coke and availment of credit took place on February, 2010 and March, 2010. The appellant had immediately reversed the alleged credit on March, 2010 and April, 2010 and returns were filed reflecting the reversal in these months. The department initiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants have contravened provision of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules. That therefore the demand of duty, interest and imposition of penalty is legal and proper. 5. I have heard both sides. It is an admitted fact that appellant availed credit on entire quantity without receiving the goods in their factory. However, the circumstances reveal that there was no intention to evade payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ression of facts or willful misstatement with intent to evade payment of duty, I am of the opinion that the penalty under section 11 AC cannot be imposed. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 12,96,486/- imposed on appellant and penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on Sh. Rama Chandran in my view is unjustified. The same are set aside without interfering with the confirmation of demand / recovery of CENVAT Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
