Cce & Cst,Noida vs M/S.Axix It And T Ltd

(Arising out of OIA No.NOI-EXCUS-000-APPL-220-13-14 dt.25.11.2013 passed by CCE(A), Noida)

Date of Hearing: 31.07.2015

Date of Order:13.08.2015

For approval & Signature:

Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

CCE & CST,Noida Appellant

Vs.

M/s.Axix It and T Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

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

Present for the Respondent: None

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

Final Order No.52545/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

Revenue has filed the appeal aggrieved that the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed under section 77 (a) of Finance Act, 1994 is less and that penalty of Rs.200/- for each day during the period of default ought to have been imposed.

2. On 31.7.2015, when the matter was taken up for hearing as per published list, none appeared for the respondent. Several notices is seen to have been issued to the respondent. Inspite of that none has appeared. Therefore, the matter was proceeded ex-parte by hearing the arguments of the DR.

3. The respondents are engaged in providing services (Consulting Engineering). During the course of audit, it was observed that the respondents availed Cenvat Credit on input services for the period September, 2004 to December, 2006, whereas they had taken Service Tax registration only in the month of December, 2006. A show cause notice was issued alleging wrongful availment of Cenvat Credit which finalized in passing the Order-in-Original dated 11.2.2013 by which demand was confirmed and equal amount penalty was imposed under section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. The Revenue filed appeal aggrieved by the combined imposition of penalty under sections 77 and 78 and contended that separate penalty under secston77 and section 78 ought to have been levied. After adjudication, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order modifying the Order-in-Original to the extent of imposing separate penalty of Rs.5,000/- under section 77 (1) (a) another penalty of Rs.5,000/- under section 77 (1) (b) besides confirming the equal amount of penalty (Rs.8,77,875/-) imposed under section 78 of the Act.

5. The present appeal is filed contending that the penalty of Rs.5,000/- is low and that it has to be enhanced to Rs.200/- per day of default. The learned DR reiterated the grounds raised in the appeal and urged that the penalty has to be enhanced. He submitted that the party availed Cenvat Credit without taking registration without filing returns and therefore has violated the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

6. The relevant sections as it stood during the disputed period, did not mandate imposition of penalty of Rs.200/- per day as urged by the appellant. This amendment to imposed penalty of Rs.200/- per day for failure to take registration was introduced much later. The set of facts presented by this case, does not call for imposition of penalty of Rs.200/- for each day of default. On such score, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order.

5. The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

(pronounced in the open court on 13.08.2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

mk

3