TRACTOR ENGINEERS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS, PUNE
LAWS(CE)-2015-5-54
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on May 29,2015

TRACTOR ENGINEERS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Customs, Pune Respondents




JUDGEMENT

RAMESH NAIR,MEMBER (J) - (1.)This appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. PI/VSK/260/2009, dated 9 -12 -2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune -I, wherein ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of Cenvat credit which was already paid by the appellant, demanded interest under Rule 14 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and rejected the appeal by denying the waiver of penalty of equal amount. The fact of the case is that appellant M/s. Tractor Engineers Limited purchased inputs which was used in the manufacture of furnace during factory of the appellant through contractor M/s. Bharat Gears Ltd. M/s. Bharat Gears Ltd. processed input provided by the various parties on behalf of the vendor in the construction of the furnace in the factory of the appellant. The Revenue proposed denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that furnace manager erected and installed in the factory of the appellant, no excise duty was paid on that, therefore, Cenvat credit is not admissible. The show cause notice was issued dated 30 -4 -2009 which was culminated into adjudicating order wherein the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of Rs. 2,96,017/ - imposed of equal amount of penalty however the dropped the demand of interest. Aggrieved by the said order appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) only for waiver of penalty as they had paid Cenvat amount adjudged by the adjudicating authority. Ld. Commissioner not only rejected their appeal for waiver of penalty but also demanded interest under Rule 14 of Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by the said order appellant is before me.
(2.)None appeared on behalf of the appellant nor there is any request for adjournment. Since issue lies in narrow compass, I proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
(3.)Shri H.N. Dixit, ld. Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that once the demand stand confirmed penalty cannot be waived. He relied upon judgments in the following cases:
(a) Union of India v/s. Ind -Swift Laboratories Ltd. [ : 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)].

(b) Balmer Lawries & Co. Ltd. v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [ : 2014 (301) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. -Mum).]

;


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