M/S Susheel Engg. Corporation vs Cce, Mumbai-Ii

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV

APPEAL NO. E/1232/10-Mum

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/204/10 dated 06.04.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)

=====================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=====================================================

M/s Susheel Engg. Corporation

: Appellant Versus

CCE, Mumbai-II : Respondent

Appearance Shri R.M. Vaidya, Advocate : For Appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Asst. Commr. (A.R.) : For Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 14.07.2015 Date of Decision: 14.07.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

Heard both sides.

2. The appellant have challenged the levy of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act on the ground of suppression. The admitted fact on record is that the appellant took CENVAT credit on capital goods during the financial year 2005-06. Mistakenly they also claimed depreciation under the Income Tax Act. On being pointed out by Audit, the appellant admitted the mistake and deposited the CENVAT credit availed with interest on 05.12.2008. Thereafter show-cause notice dated 19.02.2009 was issued, alleging suppression on the ground that, had the Revenue not detected during audit, the appellant would have never paid. Show-cause notice was adjudicated, the demands confirmed and appropriated with interest. Further penalty of Rs. 1,07,100/- was levied. In first appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have upheld the penalty.

3. Considering the contentions and facts, I find that the transactions were properly recorded in books of Account and records available with appellant. Hence there is no element of suppression with intent to evade tax.

4. Thus, the appeal is allowed and penalty under Section 11AC is set aside.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(Anil Choudhary)

Member (Judicial)

Sp

2