U.P. Bone Mills Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Meerut-I

Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2015

Appeal No. E/52610/2014-SM(BR)

(Arising out of OIA No. MRT-EXCUS-000-COM-012-13-14 dated 20.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut )

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?

U.P. Bone Mills Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T.  Meerut-I Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, DR

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

Final Order No. 52372/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots and Runners & Risers. Appellants defaulted in payment of Central Excise duty in the months of December 2011 and February 2012. A show cause notice was issued for contravention of provisions of Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 which culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 20.03.2014 which confirmed the demand, interest and imposition of penalty. Aggrieved the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. The appellants have deposited the duty demand alongwith interest paid prior to the Order-in-Original. Their present grievance is with regard to the imposition of equal amount of penalty (Rs.40,47,300/-) under Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rule 2002, read with 11 AC of the Act. The learned Counsel urged that the default occurred only due to financial hardships and there was no intention to evade payment of duty. He relied upon the judgments in Vapi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Daman 2014 (309) ELT 532 (Tri.-Ahmd.) and CCE Vs Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.) in which it has been held that when default was due to stringent financial condition, there was no intention to evade payment of duty. The Honble Apex Court has upheld the judgment in Saurashtra Cement Case in Commissioner Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd 2013 (292) ELT 498 (SC) dated 9.11.2012. In the light of the above judgment I am of the view that the penalty imposed is un-sustainable. In view there of, the penalty imposed vide the impugned order is set aside. The appeal allowed accordingly.

(Pronounced on 31/07/2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

K. Gupta

3