Appeal No.E/908-909/2006, [Arising out of OIO No.21/MP/2005, dt.19.12.2005, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Surat-I]. Case: 1. Ms Cosmic Processors 2. Mr.Mohammed Habib Abdul Sattar Choksi Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.Tax, Surat-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Appeal No.E/908-909/2006, [Arising out of OIO No.21/MP/2005, dt.19.12.2005, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Surat-I] |
| Counsel | For Appellants: Shri Prakash Shah, Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocates and For Respondents: Ms.Nitina Nagori, A.R. |
| Judges | Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) |
| Issue | Central Excise Rules 1944 - Rule 96ZQ |
| Judgement Date | May 16, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Dr. D.M. Misra, (West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad)
-
These appeals are files are filed against OIO No.21/MP/2005, dt.19.12.2005, passed by Commissioner, C.Ex. & S.Tax, Surat-I.
-
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of processed fabrics. On a visit to their factory premises on 16.02.2002, inter alia, it was noticed that the Appellant had short paid the duty levied under compounded levy scheme for the months Jan. & Feb.2001; also it was found that for certain months Central Excise duty was not paid by depositing the same but wrongly the TR-6 challan numbers were mentioned in the records as if the duty was paid. Accordingly, the records were retrieved and on completion of investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of duty amounting to Rs.1,35,65,287/- with proposal to appropriate the amount of Rs.50,03,909/-, already deposited with interest and proposal for penalty under various provisions of Central Excise Acts & Rules. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalties imposed on the Appellant Company under various provisions and personal penalty on the Director. Hence, the present appeals.
-
The learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that the period covered in the present notice includes January and February 2001, where under the Appellants was required to discharge duty under compounded levy scheme. It is his contention that during the said period, there was short payment of duty of Rs.4.00 lakhs, which the Appellant does not dispute in the present appeal. However, they are disputing the imposition of penalty, interest under the erstwhile Rule 96ZQ of Central Excise Rules 1944, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs CCE 2015 (326) ELT 209 (SC).
-
The learned Advocate further assailing the impugned order, submits that the learned Commissioner, while confirming the demand against the Appellant denied the benefit of deemed credit under Notification No.7/2001-CE(NT), dt.01.03.2001. It is his contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously invoked e clause 6 of the said notification, observing that since there was default on the part of the appellant in not depositing the duty in time and making incorrect entry in their RT-12 return about the payment of duty through TR-6 challan, therefore, the benefit of deemed credit cannot be extended to them. He submits that in the respective...
To continue reading
Request your trial