Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CE & ST, LTU-Chennai [sought to be changed as CGST And CE Chennai South]
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 330 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 26-12-2017
E\/Misc\/41558\/2017 (by Dept.), E\/41845\/2017 – A\/43382\/2017
Central Excise
Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri M. Kannan, Advocate – For the Appellant
\nShri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) – For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nThe MA has been filed by Revenue for change of cause title from Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai to “The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate” consequent upon the introduction of GST and the resultant change in the jurisdiction.
\n2. After hearing bo<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ready paid. Penalty of Rs. 18,50,755\/- was also imposed under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dt. 29.05.2017 inter alia held that for the period prior to April 2011, 100% penalty would be payable by the appellant and that for the period subsequent to April 2011 benefit of 50% of penalty is accorded. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Advocate, that benefit can be taken suo motu so as long as the other conditionalities are satisfied. In this case appellant had already paid up the duty liability and interest well before issue of SCN. Accordingly, they are very much entitled to avail benefit of reduced penalty. In the circumstances, Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his brief in ordering 100% penalty before April 2011 and 50% penalty thereafter. The impugned order therefore cannot sustain and is set aside. Appeal is allowed to the extent of restricting the penalty payable by the appellant only under Rule 15 (2) of CCR 2004 \/ 11AC of C.E. Act to 25% of the penalty imposed by the original authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CE & ST, LTU-Chennai [sought to be changed as CGST And CE Chennai South]Central Excise2018 (3) TMI 330 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 26-12-2017E\/Misc\/41558\/2017 (by Dept.), E\/41845\/2017 – A\/43382\/2017Central ExciseShri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M. Kannan, Advocate – For the Appellant Shri K.P. … Continue reading “Caterpillar India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CE & ST, LTU-Chennai [sought to be changed as CGST And CE Chennai South]”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10805","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Advocate, Shri M. Kannan submits that based on the order of the original authority, they had already paid up 25% of the penalty. As they had already paid up the duty liability and interest even before issue of show cause notice, they ava<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgem<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n