Skip to content


M/S. Veeline Media Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-iii - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided On
Case NumberStay Petition No.E/S/71117/2013 & Excise Appeal No.E/A/71057/2013 (Arising Out of Order-In-Appeal No.35/Kol-Vi/2012 Dated 29.05.2013 Passed By Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata)
Judge
AppellantM/S. Veeline Media Limited
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-iii
Excerpt:
central excise act, 1944 - section 11ac.....manufacture of finished products, was rs.1,36,701/-. the ld. consultant also submits that the ld. commissioner (appeals) had not decided the issue on merits, but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of rs.3.00 lakh against the penalty imposed. it is his submission that they had already deposited rs.4.00 lakh which included irregular cenvat credit of rs.1,36,701/-. he further submits that the factory of the applicant company is closed and any predeposit would cause them undue hardship. 3. ld. ar for the revenue submits that the ld. commissioner (appeals) had not decided the issue on merits. he has no objection in remanding the matter to the ld. commissioner (appeals) for deciding the issue afresh. 4. after hearing both sides for some time, i find.....
Judgment:

1. This is an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.7,21,156/- and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. At the outset, ld. Consultant for the Applicant submits that during the period, 01.04.2009 to 23.01.2010, the Applicant had availed CENVAT Credit on the inputs that had been used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. On being pointed out by the Department, they had reversed Rs.4.00 lakh towards the irregular availment of credit on in puts. Later, they found the total irregular availment of credit on inputs used for the manufacture of finished products, was Rs.1,36,701/-. The ld. Consultant also submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits, but dismissed their appeal for non-compliance with the direction of predeposit of Rs.3.00 lakh against the penalty imposed. It is his submission that they had already deposited Rs.4.00 lakh which included irregular CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,36,701/-. He further submits that the factory of the Applicant Company is closed and any predeposit would cause them undue hardship.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits. He has no objection in remanding the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh.

4. After hearing both sides for some time, I find that the Appeal could be disposed of, at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of predeposit of all dues adjudged, I take up the present Appeal for disposal, with the consent of both sides.

5. I find that the Applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs.4.00 lakh on the ground of irregular availment of credit on inputs that had gone into the manufacture of dutiable and exempted products. I find that the amount deposited by the Applicant, is sufficient to hear their Appeal. In the result, the impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh, without insisting any further predeposit. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant. All issues are kept open. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //