M\/s K.L. Concast P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central GST, Ghaziabad
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 701 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 19-11-2018
APPEAL No. E\/71246\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/72643\/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) for Appellant
\nShri Pawan Kumar Singh (Superintendent) AR for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nAfter hearing both the side duly represented by Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent, AR for the Revenue. I find that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of MS Shapes and Sections. As per the audit conducted in their factory it was found that the appel<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the assessee by observing that they have paid the duty along with interest even before the issuance of the show cause notice. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n former was by raising an invoice in which case, it cannot be said that there was any mala fide on the part of the assessee to suppress the fact of clearance of the transformer. Non-payment duty by itself cannot lead to ipso facto presence of any mala fide. Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad vs. Shrigonda Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. reported at 2015 (327) E.L.T. 429 (Tri-Mumbai) in similar circumstances, set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s K.L. Concast P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central GST, GhaziabadCentral Excise2019 (1) TMI 701 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 19-11-2018APPEAL No. E\/71246\/2018-EX[SM] – A\/72643\/2018-SM[BR]Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Rajesh Chhibber (Advocate) for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh (Superintendent) AR for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa After hearing both the side … Continue reading “M\/s K.L. Concast P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, Central GST, Ghaziabad”<\/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-16176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16176","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=16176"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16176\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The said order was appealed against by the Revenue before Commissioner (Appeals) for the purpose of imposition of penalty. The Appellate Authority observed that inasmuch as the appellant cleared the said goods without reflecting the same in their ER-1 return and without paying any duty on the same, they are guilty of mala fide suppression. Accordingly, by taking into account the provisions of Section 11AC (c) of the Central Excise Act he imposed penalty of Rs. 1,33,910\/-, being 50% of the total demand of duty.
\nThe said penalty is being challenged before Tribunal.
\n4. It is appellant's contention that they were n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. In view of the foregoing discussions I find no justifiable reason to impose penalty upon the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and appeal is allowed by restoring the order of the Original Adjudicati<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n