M\/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST &CE, Howrah
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 1379 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 20-11-2018
Appeal No. E\/78319\/2018 – FO\/76966\/2018
Central Excise
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Ankit Kanodia, CA for the Appellant (s)
\nShri A.K. Biswas, Suptd.(AR) the Respondent (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P.K. Choudhary
\nThis 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.
\n2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Glass & Glassware classifiable under Chapter 70 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the audit of the records and documents it was observed that the appellant had cleared old and <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n seventy eight) only on the assessee under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, I allow the benefit for payment of reduced penalty of 25% (Twenty five percent) of the duty amount to the assessee subject to fulfillment of the conditions as laid down in Section 11AC(1)(c ) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n td. [2016(341) ELT 607 (All.)]. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB is issued, this would show that there was no question of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of fact hence penalty and interest should not be levied. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam, 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tri. – Bang.), took this view. The department preferred appeal in Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 7-5-2003, appeals are dismissed and judgment is reported in 2004 (163) E.L.T. A53 (S.C.). Thereafter, Madras High Court in Commissioner v. Kjon Engineering (P) Ltd., 2005 (67) RLT 157, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner, Central Excise, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 508, Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise-I v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd., 2005 (129) ECR 386 = 2005 (190) E.L.T. 11 (Bom.) and Rajasthan High Court in Union of India and Others v. T.P.L. Industries Ltd., 2007 (214) E.L.T. 506, have taken the same view. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST &CE, HowrahCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 1379 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 20-11-2018Appeal No. E\/78319\/2018 – FO\/76966\/2018Central ExciseShri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Ankit Kanodia, CA for the Appellant (s) Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd.(AR) the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary … Continue reading “M\/s. Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST &CE, Howrah”<\/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-15215","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15215","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=15215"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15215\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. I order for appropriation of Rs. 1,02,678\/- (Rupees one lakh two thousand six hundred and seventy eight) only already paid vide RG- 23A Pt II entry Sl.No.416 dt. 28.04.2015.”
\nAgainst the adjudication order, both the assessee and the Revenue were in appeal before the lower appellate authority and the ld. Commissioner of CGST & CX, upheld the Order-in-Original to the extent of confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty and rejected the appeal filed by the assessee and allowed the revenue's appeal by ordering for recovery of interest under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence the present appeal<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Ld. DR reiterates the discussions and findings of the impugned order.
\n5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
\n6. The dispute in the present case is regarding the payment of interest and imposition of penalty. It is the case of the appellant that ld. Adjudicating Authority accepted the fact that the appellant had reversed the amount of cenvat credit of Rs. 1,02,678\/- before issuance of the show cause notice. He also observed that since sufficient balance was always lying in their cenvat account since the date of credit taken till the reversal of the same, he waived the payment of interest. However, penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was imposed.
\n7. I find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad in the case of Commr. Of Cus. & C.Ex., Noida vs. Supreme Industries Ltd. (supra). The relevant portions of the aforesaid decisi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. Confronted <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n