Modern India Concast Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST &CE, Siliguri
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1378 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E/78353/2018 – FO/76967/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
Shri Arun Kumar Nandy, Consultant for the Appellant (s)
Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd.(AR) the Respondent (s)
ORDER
Per Shri P.K. Choudhary
This appeal is listed for admission today. After hearing both sides and despite the amount involved in this case being less than Rs. 2.00 lakhs, the appellant intends to contest the issue on merit, which is admitted and since the issue lies in a narrow compass, with the consent of both sides the same is taken up for disposal.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g authority confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,28,032/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order to the extent of demand of duty and interest. He reduced the imposition of penalty to 50% of the duty amount confirmed i.e. 1,14,016 (50% of Rs. 2,28,032/-). Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.
3. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the adjudication order has been passed without scrutinizing the transport documents of the appellant. He strongly argued that the adjudicating authority ought to have worked
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
% of the penalty of Rs. 77,885/- vide GAR-7 Challan No.00166 dt. 30.05.2013. Ld. Consultant cited various decisions where it was held that penalty is not imposable when dispute related to interpretation of statutory provisions.
4. Ld. DR reiterates the order of the lower authorities.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal record.
6. I find that the appellant is not disputing the demand of duty and interest and have also paid 50% of the penalty of the admitted demand. However, they are claiming that there is some discrepancy in the demand confirmed to the tune of Rs. 2,28,032/-, whereas as per their calculation, the total demand should have been Rs. 1,55,768/-. I find that the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Co
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =