- (1.) Dissatisfied with the order dated May 29, 2013 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity "the Tribunal"), the appellant (M/s. Prime Alloys, Village Ambey Majra, G.T. Road, Mandi Gobindgarh) has preferred the instant appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"). The appellant's firm has claimed that the following question of law would emerge from the impugned order:- "whether imposition of 100% penalty is justifiable when the duty as well as interest along with 25% of the duty has been deposited prior to the passing of the Order-in-Original dated July 20, 2009 by the adjudicating authority and/or denial of benefit provided under Section 11AC of the Act is wrong and contrary to law." Briefly stated the facts, which led to the controversy and necessary for its disposal are that appellant's firm is engaged in the trading of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short "the Tariff Act") and is registered with Central Excise Department for trading excisable goods. The Divisional Preventive Staff conducted an inspection at the premises of appellant on July 30, 2008, during which, a quantity of 20.100 Metric Ton of Silicon Manganese involving Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,14,483/- was found deficit. The said fact was admitted by Darbara Singh, one of the partners of appellant-firm but he could not furnish any plausible explanation for the shortage. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated January 30, 2009 was issued to the appellant for debarring it from passing on the Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,14,483/- for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity "the Rules 2002") read with Section 11AC of the Act. Appellant's firm was debarred from passing on the credit of the above referred amount by the adjudicating authority vide order dated July 20, 2009 and slapped penalty of the equal amount. The appellant firm deposited the duty as well as interest along with 25% of the duty on February 10, 2009 i.e. prior to the passing of order dated July 20, 2009 by the adjudicating authority.
(2.) Order dated July 20, 2009 debarring the appellant from passing on the credit of Rs. 2,14,483/- as well as imposition of penalty of equal amount was challenged by the appellant's firm before Commissioner (Appeals), Central Customs & Excise, Chandigarh, who upheld the same and dismissed the appeal vide order dated December 31, 2011. Thereafter, the appellant's firm preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which also met the same fate. Dissatisfied with the above referred orders, instant appeal has been filed.
(3.) While assailing the impugned order dated May 29, 2013 passed by the Tribunal, Mr. Ishpuneet Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant's firm has ebulliently argued while referring to provisos to sub-section 2 of Section 11AC of the Act that where the duty is determined and interest payable thereon under Section 11AB of the Act is paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of the adjudicating officer or any other officer empowered in this behalf to determine such duty, the amount of penalty must be to the extent of 25% of the duty so determined.;