Archana Wadhwa - (1.) BOTH the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order of the lower authorities vide which he has confirmed the duty against M/s. J.V. Strips Ltd. along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty. In addition, separate penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - stands imposed upon Shri Anand Bindal, Director of the appellant company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cold rolled steel strips and varnished quoted sheets. One of the raw materials used by them is H.R. Coils, which they are receiving from the manufacturer and availing cenvat credit of duty paid on the same. However, inasmuch as, the H.R. Coils received by them were found to be lower in weight than the weight mentioned in the invoices, appellant raised debit notes against the supplier of the H.R. Coils. Revenue entertained a view that the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit in respect of the short quantity of H.R. Coils received by them. Accordingly, demand of duty of Rs. 1,37,684/ - was raised and confirmed by the lower authorities.
(2.) SECOND demand of Rs. 1,80,866/ - stands raised and confirmed in respect of the debit notes raised by the appellants to their buyers on account of escalation of price of their final products. Ld. Advocate is not disputing the confirmation of said demand inasmuch as an assessee is admittedly liable to pay on the escalated assessable value. As such, we uphold the said confirmation of demand of duty along with interest and 25% penalty. As regards the denial of cenvat credit, we find that the shortage of coils was in respect of the weight of the same, which was to the tune of 0.039%. Admittedly, the manufacturer of the coils has paid the excise duty on the total weight of the coils and it is the same duty paid by the manufacturer, which stands claimed by the assessee. The marginal difference in weight of the coils, for which the appellant laid claim with the manufacturer, will not lead to denial of credit to the appellant inasmuch as the manufacturer has admittedly paid the duty on the full weight of the coils. We find that the issue is not more res integra and stands settled by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Ispat Industries Ltd. reported in : 2012 (275) ELT 235 (Tribunal -Mumbai). As such, we set aside the confirmation of demand of duty to the extent of Rs. 1,37,684/ - along with setting aside of confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty on the said ground.
(3.) AS regards the appeal by Shri Anand Bindal, Director of the company, we find no justification for imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - upon him, inasmuch as the issues involved were of legal and technical nature and there can be no malafide on the part of the Director. We accordingly set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) imposed upon him. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.;