2018 (3) TMI 261 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – only plea put forward by the ld. counsel is that the adjudicating authority may be directed to verify the CENVAT documents and may be given benefit of the CENVAT credit in case the appellant produce documents – Held that: – In Vikash J. Shah Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Coimbatore [2016 (2) TMI 442 – MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Honble High Court observed that the benefit of CENVAT credit ought to be given to the appellant – We direct the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the appellant for CENVAT credit on production of documents. The said verification shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
–
Penalty on M/s. Sri Amman Allied and Steel Industries – Held that: – Taking into consideration of the fact that equal penalty under section 11AC has been imposed and also that a penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed upon a company, we find that the said penalty requires to be
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eiving inputs. The original authority confirmed duty demand of ₹ 83,04,988/- as the goods which were removed clandestinely and ₹ 6,48,392/- being the CENVAT credit wrongly availed for the period June 2003 to June 2004. Interest under section 11AB and penalty under section 11AC were also imposed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 4.5.2007, both the appellants filed appeals before the Tribunal. Department also filed appeal against the dropping of demand of duty on clandestine clearance by M/s. Sri Amman Allied and Steel Industries in the year 2001-02. The Tribunal vide common Final Order dated 30.4.2008 remanded the case. The departments appeal was also remanded. In denovo proceedings, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 83,04,988/- along with interest and imposed equal penalty under section 11AC on M/s. Sri Ulaganayaki Amman Steels. The Commissioner dropped the demand of ₹ 6,48,392/- for recovery of CENVAT credit which was raised against M/s. Sri Ul
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
/s. Sri Amman Allied and Steel Industries, a penalty of Rs. One lakhs has been imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2000 on the company. That since equal penalty under section 11AC has already been imposed on M/s. Sri Ulaganayaki Amman Steels, on adjudication of connected show cause notice arising out of the very same investigation, the said penalty under Rule 26 may be set aside. 3. The ld. AR Shri S. Govindarajan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellant has filed undertaking seeking to withdraw the major contentions in the appeal. It is submitted that they are not contesting the duty of ₹ 83,04,988/- confirmed in the impugned order. They also have undertaken to withdraw the appeal before Honble High Court against the Tribunals final order dated 30.4.2008. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant M/s. Sri Ulaganayaki Amman Steels deserves to be dismissed. The only plea put forward by the ld. counsel is that the adjudicati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =