C.C.E., Allahabad Vs. M/S Hi-tech Medical Pvt. Ltd.

C.C.E., Allahabad vs M/S Hi-tech Medical Pvt. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jul 19, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941706

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/941706
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: The Honourable Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
Decided On: Jul 19, 2010
Case Number: Central Excise Appeal No.1172 of 2008-SM
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C.C.E., Allahabad

Advocate Shri R.K. Gupta, Authorised Departmental Representative (SDR) for the Revenue and none for the respondents.

Respondent

M/S Hi-tech Medical Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

.....the premises of the respondent on 24.1.2006, they found some quantities of final products in excess of the recorded stock; they also found shortage of inputs on which cenvat credit was taken. the original authority inter alia confirmed the demand of rs.11,097/-relating to shortage of finished goods which were provisionally released; he also ordered recovery of cenvat credit of rs.30,456/-. he imposed penalty of rs.10,000/- on the respondent for complicity in the offence under section 11ac of the central excise act, 1944 read with rule 15of the cenvat credit rules, 2004. the commissioner (appeals) did not agree to the prayer for enhancement of the penalty. 4. on going through the show cause notice, it is noticed that the respondents have accepted the shortage and excesses. the department alleged that excess found goods were kept with intent to clear them clandestinely. the department also alleged that the short founds goods have been clandestinely removed. both these allegations were not corroborated by any other evidences. the acceptance of shortage of inputs involving credit of rs.30,456/- does not lead to the conclusion that the said inputs have been clandestinely removed, as sought to be contended by the department. under these circumstances, the imposition of penalty of rs.10,000/- by the original authority has to be considered as adequate and there was no justification for imposition of penalty equal to the duty involved. under these circumstances, the order of the commissioner (appeals) in not interfering with the order of the original authority is justified. 5. no valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the order of the commissioner (appeals). the appeal is, therefore, rejected.

Full Judgment

Per M. Veeraiyan:

This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 34-CE/ALLD/2008 dated 28.2.2008, by which the prayer of the Department for enhancement of penalty from Rs.10,000/- to an amount equal to the duty involved under Section 11AC was rejected.

2. Heard the learned SDR who reiterates the grounds of appeal.

3. When the officers visited the premises of the respondent on 24.1.2006, they found some quantities of final products in excess of the recorded stock; they also found shortage of inputs on which cenvat credit was taken. The original authority inter alia confirmed the demand of Rs.11,097/-relating to shortage of finished goods which were provisionally released; he also ordered recovery of cenvat credit of Rs.30,456/-. He imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the respondent for complicity in the offence under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree to the prayer for enhancement of the penalty.

4. On going through the show cause notice, it is noticed that the respondents have accepted the shortage and excesses. The Department alleged that excess found goods were kept with intent to clear them clandestinely. The Department also alleged that the short founds goods have been clandestinely removed. Both these allegations were not corroborated by any other evidences. The acceptance of shortage of inputs involving credit of Rs.30,456/- does not lead to the conclusion that the said inputs have been clandestinely removed, as sought to be contended by the Department. Under these circumstances, the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- by the original authority has to be considered as adequate and there was no justification for imposition of penalty equal to the duty involved. Under these circumstances, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in not interfering with the order of the original authority is justified.

5. No valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is, therefore, rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties C.C.E., Allahabad vs M/S Hi-tech Medical Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge The Honourable Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)