C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur vs Utpadak Karkhana Maryadit

Date of Pronouncement: 03/08/2015

Appeal No. E/60621/2013-EX(SM)

(Arising out of OIA No. 38/RPR-II/2013 dated 15.07.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal-II) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Raipur )

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?

C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur Appellant

Vs.

M/s Bhoramdev Sahakari Shakkar

Utpadak Karkhana Maryadit Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri G.R. Sharma, DR

Present for the Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate

Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.52404/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order which set aside the penalty imposed.

2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. A Show Cause Notice was issued to them alleging wrong availment of Cenvat Credit which finalized in the order dated 21.8.2008 confirming the demand, interest and penalty of equal amount. Aggrieved the appellants preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who modified the order to the extent of setting aside the penalty. Revenue is before us challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty.

2. At the time of hearing the learned Counsel for respondents, Ms. Surabhi Sinha submitted that the appeal filed by them arising from the impugned order which upheld the demand of duty, but set aside the penalty, has been allowed and the demand of duty has been set aside by the Tribunal as per Final Order No. A/ 51903/2015-SM/BR dated 12.06.2015. She produced a copy of the order also. When the duty demand along with interest has been set aside there is no ground for imposition of penalty. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Pronounced on 03/08/2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

K. Gupta

2