M/S. Slach Hydratecs Equipment Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 71/CE/DLH/2013 dated 28/06/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Delhi I ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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?

M/s. Slach Hydratecs Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise. Respondent

Delhi I

Appearance:

Shri P K Bhatnagar, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 10.6.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51865/2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant equivalent to the duty which was paid by them late.

2. The facts of the case are that during the period 16.12.2006 to 31.3.2007 was the period of default and also utilized the cenvat credit account for payment of central excise duty. Revenues case is that as per Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 during the period of default appellant cannot utilize their cenvat credit account for payment of duty. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the appellant and demand of duty along with interest was confirmed and equivalent penalty was also imposed. Later on, the appellant paid the duty along with interest and was entitled to take cenvat credit thereof. In these circumstances, the amount paid later on along with interest was appropriated. But penalty equivalent to the duty was also confirmed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me.

3. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

4. As in this case, there is procedural lapse on the part of the appellant by utilizing their cenvat credit account during the period of default for payment of duty, the penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is appropriate, as held by this Tribunal in various judicial pronouncements. Therefore, I impose penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) on the appellant under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. With these terms, appeal is disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

2