CEMA ELECTRIC LIGHTING PRODUCTS INDIA (P.) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(GJH)-2014-6-130
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on June 19,2014

Cema Electric Lighting Products India (P.) Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 9.4.2013 passed by the learned Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. E/412 of 2012, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the present appellant herein and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) passed in Order in Appeal No. 58/2012, confirming the demand raised by the adjudicating authority to recover the amount of Rs. 1,59,353/- on the Cenvat Credit wrongly availed by the appellant, the appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal. That the appellant herein is engaged in the manufacture of 'Fluorescent Tube Lights', General Lighting lamp, etc. and had availed Cenvat Credit on the entire payment made to the canteen contractor even though they recovered an amount of Rs. 13,27,415/- from the employees/beneficiaries during the period from June, 2007 to June, 2009. The show-cause notice came to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Nadiad, to the appellant, demanding an amount of Rs. 1,59,353/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking the extended period of limitation. The interest was also demanded under Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules 2004 read with section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said show-cause notice came to be confirmed by the first adjudicating authority confirming the demand of Rs. 1,59,353/- and the penalty of the like amount under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also came to be imposed. By the Order in Original, the appellant was directed to pay the interest at the applicable rate under Rule 14 of the Rules, 2004 read with section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(2.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Order in Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the demand of Rs. 1,59,353/- and imposition of penalty of like amount and the interest thereon, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the said appeal confirming the Order in Original.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with both the orders, more particularly, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the present appellant has preferred further appeal before the learned Tribunal and by the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.