iti Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/43679
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided OnSep-15-2006
JudgeN T C.N.B.
Appellantiti Ltd.
RespondentCommissioner of C. Ex.
Excerpt:
1. none has appeared for the appellant despite several adjournments.therefore, i proceed to dispose of the case after hearing the learned dr.2. the rectification of mistake application is in regard to setting aside of the penalty vide final order no. a/1503/04/nb (s/m), dated 11-10-2004 .3. the contention of the revenue is that penalty was set aside based on the submission that appellant had never utilized the credit which was not due. the submission that appellant had never utilized the credit which was not due.the submission is that this is factually incorrect. revenue has filed a summery of credit balance in the appellant's account as on 31-5-03, 31-10-03 and 31-11-03 to show that the balance on those dates were much less that the disputed amount.4. revenue is right in its contention that the setting aside of the penalty was on a wrong factual representation. the application is, therefore, accepted and our final order no. a/1503/04/nb (s/m) dated 11-10-2004 is modified by confirming the penalty to the extent of rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand).
Judgment:
1. None has appeared for the appellant despite several adjournments.

Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the case after hearing the learned DR.2. The rectification of mistake application is in regard to setting aside of the penalty vide Final Order No. A/1503/04/NB (S/M), dated 11-10-2004 .

3. The contention of the revenue is that penalty was set aside based on the submission that appellant had never utilized the credit which was not due. The submission that appellant had never utilized the credit which was not due.

The submission is that this is factually incorrect. Revenue has filed a summery of credit balance in the appellant's account as on 31-5-03, 31-10-03 and 31-11-03 to show that the balance on those dates were much less that the disputed amount.

4. Revenue is right in its contention that the setting aside of the penalty was on a wrong factual representation. The application is, therefore, accepted and our Final Order No. A/1503/04/NB (S/M) dated 11-10-2004 is modified by confirming the penalty to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand).