Ashok & Company Pan Bahar Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-I

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.83/CE/DLH/2013 dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi-I]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) 1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?

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

Ashok & Company Pan Bahar Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Delhi-I  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Manish Pushkarna, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri. M.R. Sharma, D.R.

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. __54263/2015___

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 25.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise- Delhi-I, upholding the adjudication order.

2. The ld. Advocate, Shri Manish Pushkarna appearing for the appellant submits that with regard to the duty demand of Rs.1,06,791/-, the appellant is not contesting the liability and has already deposited the duty along with penalty. With regard to demand of cenvat credit of Rs.1,84,798/-, the submissions of the ld. Advocate are that on procurement of the input namely, plastic pouches in roll form, Cenvat credit was taken by the appellant. He further submits that since use of the said goods were banned pursuant to the judgment of Honble Supreme Court; the appellant reversed the credit on 21.11.2011. He further submits that the inputs are still lying in the appellants factory premises. Therefore, the ld. Advocate submits that imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not justified.

3. Per contra, Shri. M.R. Sharma, ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue-respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. Heard the ld. Counsels for both sides and perused the records.

5. With regard to the duty demand of Rs.1,06,791/- and imposition of equal amount of penalty, since the ld. Advocate concedes that the same is payable by the appellant, I am dismissing the appeal on the said ground. With regard to taking of cenvat credit of Rs.1,84,798/- on the plastic pouches for packing of pan masala, it is an admitted fact that the said input has been received under the cover of valid duty paid documents. The said credit was reversed subsequently, in view of the fact that use of plastic pouches was banned by the Honble Supreme Court for packing of pan masala. Since, immediately after delivery of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court, the appellant had reversed the cenvat credit, I am of the view that Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty.

6. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent of imposition of penalty under Rule 15 ibid.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

0 3