M/S, Federal Mogul Goetze, India Pvt vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 71-2009-CE dated 20/07/2009 passed by CCE(Appeals-I), Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

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?

M/S, FEDERAL MOGUL GOETZE, INDIA PVT, M/S, GOETZE INDIA LTD. YELAHANKA BANGALORE Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs BANGALORE-II NULL PB 5400 CR BUIDING...QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Ashok Deshpande, Advocate RAVI SHANKAR & CHANDER KUMAR, ADVOCATES 504,4TH FLOOR, OXFORD TOWERS, NO.139, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLI, BANGALORE - 560008 KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 20/01/2015

Date of Decision: 20/01/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20111 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

During the verification of records of the assessee by the officers of the Department, it was found that there was several instances during the year 2005 and 2006 wherein the appellants had taken credit twice on the same document. A statement was recorded from the Manager-Excise of the appellant who admitted that there were such instances and submitted that appellant is a large unit engaged in the manufacture of auto parts and what had happened was bona fide mistakes since record was maintained manually and a large number of documents had to be handled. He also submitted that appellant has a respectful track of compliance and has consistently contributed increasing revenue. The appellants promptly paid the amount with interest without any hesitation before issue of show-cause notice. Nevertheless proceedings were initiated culminating in confirmation of demand and appropriation of the amounts paid and imposition of equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a large tax paying unit and what had happened was a bona fide mistake and the fact that appellant had paid the money immediately after detection would show that there was no intention to evade duty. It cannot be said that appellant has suppressed the facts since the fact of availment of CENVAT credit invoice-wise and document-wise is not required to be provided. Therefore penalty could have been imposed by invoking Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 only if there was an intention to evade duty. Nowhere such evidence had been brought out. The statement of the Manager-Excise recorded immediately clearly reveals that what had happened was a bona fide mistake and happened because of large number of documents and manual maintenance of accounts. I find substance in the argument advanced. In view of the above, the mandatory penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside and appeal is allowed.

(Operative part of this order was pronounced in the court on conclusion of the hearing)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER

Raja.

3