Ace Polybond Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CEX.XI/JMJ/17/916/ APL/NSK/2004/1630 dated 16.2.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nasik)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

ACE Polybond Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent

Appearance: Shri Pradeep Korde, Advocate, for appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR), for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 17.8.2015 Date of Decision: 17.8.2015

ORDER NO

Per: P.K. Jain

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant got manufactured the printing cylinders for their customers, which where required for printing their specific designed BOPP tapes. The appellant recovered the money spent on getting such printing cylinders manufactured. However, the value of these cylinders were not taken into account while manufacturing the final product. The issue was pointed out by the Revenue during audit and the appellant had immediately paid the duty involved. Further, at the stay stage, the appellant had paid the interest on the delayed payment of duty.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they are not disputing the duty or interest but are requesting for waiver of penalty. It was their submission that there was no intention to evade any duty and non-inclusion of the cost of printing cylinder is a bona fide mistake and as soon as the department pointed out, they paid the duty which was even beyond the period of one year. He submitted that the ingredients of Section 11AC are not present in the present case and, therefore, no penalty under Section 11AC need be imposed.

3. Learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The duty involved in the present case is Rs.24,376/-. We note that the appellant is not disputing the duty amount as also the interest leviable thereon. Their only submission is that they had no wilful intention to evade payment of duty or suppression of fact and non-inclusion of the cost of printing cylinder was a bona fide mistake.

5. Keeping in view the overall conduct of the appellant at the time of audit as also the amount of duty involved in the case, we do not consider the present case to be a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC. We, therefore, set aside the penalty under Section 11AC. Barring the above modification, the impugned order is upheld.

6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

(Pronounced in Court)

(S.S. Garg) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)

tvu 1 2