M/S. Pankhuri Laminates Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iv

(Arising out of OIA No.214-215-CE-APPL-DLH-IV-2014 dt.17.10.14 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Delhi-IV, Faridabad)

Date of Hearing: 01.10.2015

Date of Order: 8.10.2015

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

M/s. Pankhuri Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Delhi-IV Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri J.C.Khattak, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri B.B..Sharma, AR

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

Final Order No.53111/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The appeal is filed challenging impugned order which upheld the duty demand and imposition of penalty.

2. The appellants are holding Central Excise Registration for manufacture of Printed Laminated Packing Material. The factory of the appellant was visited by the Central Excise Officers on 13.2.2012 and shortage of finished and raw materials was detected. A show cause notice dated 27.4.2012 proposing recovery of duty amounting to Rs.2,17,599/- and cenvat credit of Rs.1,86,088/- with interest besides proposing penal action was issued. The notice was defended by the appellant mainly on the ground that appellant had deposited duty/cenvat credit amount to Rs.4,03,687/- (Rs.2,17,599 + Rs.1,86,088/-) even prior to issuance of show cause notice. The adjudication finalized in the Order-in-Original which confirmed the demand and also imposed equal amount of penalty besides the same amount of penalty imposed on the Director. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed upon the director to Rs.70,000/- and upheld the rest of the order. Aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal.

3. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for appellant submitted that though the duty demand is also challenged in the appeal, he is presently confining his arguments to the imposition of penalty alone. It is also submitted that the penalty of Rs.70,000/- imposed upon the Director has been deposited and there is no challenge against the said interference either by appellant or the Revenue.

4. Against this, the learned DR argued that the admission of shortage of raw material and finished products establish that the

appellant has cleared goods without invoices and payment of duty. That the penalty imposed is reasonable.

5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the records.

6. The appellant has paid the duty at the time of investigation itself. The penalty imposed upon the Director which was reduced to Rs.70,000/- is also deposited by the appellant. Taking into account these facts and also the law contained in section 11AC, I hold that the penalty is to be reduced to 25% of the duty determined. No other arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant.

7. In view thereof the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the penalty imposed upon the appellant to 25% of the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

(pronounced in the open court on 08.10.2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

mk

3