M/S Veena Industries Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal25 June 2015

CitationAppeal No.E/1587/2010-DB

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the adjudicating authority imposes a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and does not afford the assessee the option of paying 25% of the duty within thirty days, the assessee is entitled to exercise that option, namely to pay the penalty at 25% of the duty together with the duty and interest within thirty days of communication of the order, and the appeal is disposed of on that basis.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.E/1587/2010-DB [Arising out of OIA No.SKSS/106/VAPI/2010, dt.22.07.2010, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi]

M/s Veena Industries Ltd. Appellant

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri S. Narayanan, Advocate For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

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

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:25.06.2015

Order No. A/10870/2015, dt.25.06.2015

Per: P.K. Das

The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that they are not contesting the demand of duty alongwith interest. He submits that the Adjudicating authority imposed penalty of equal amount of CENVAT Credit under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submits that both the authorities below had not given option to pay the penalty 25% of the duty within 30 days as per Section 11AC of the Act. He relied upon the following decisions:-

a) Exotic Associates Vs CCE 2010 (252) ELT 49 (Guj.)

b) CCE Surat-II Vs Gopal Fibres Pvt.Ltd.

2010 (256) ELT 10 (Guj.)

c) CCE Surat-I Vs Rita Dyeing & Printing Mills P. Ltd (299) ELT 408 (Guj.)

d) CCE Surat-I Vs Bhagyoday Silk Industries 2010 (262) ELT 248 (Guj.)

e) Chandan Steel Ltd Vs CCE Vapi 2015 (316) ELT 573 (Guj.)

f) CCE Surat-I Vs Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works 2013 (298) ELT 376 (Guj.)

2. We find that both the authorities below have not given option to pay penalty 25% of the duty under Section 11AC of the Act.

3. In view of that, the Appellant is entitled to pay the penalty 25% of the duty alongwith duty and interest within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

4. The appeal is disposed of in the above manner.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free