COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRY Vs. VISHNU PAPER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
LAWS(CE)-2015-3-14
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 19,2015

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRY Appellant
VERSUS
Vishnu Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R. Periasami, Member (T) - (1.)REVENUE filed appeal against the impugned Order -in -Appeal No. 18/2007 (P) dt. 31.1.2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai.
(2.)NONE appeared for the respondent despite notice. The case was adjourned on 3.3.2014, 9.5.2014 when none appeared for the respondent. Since the appeal is an old one and the respondents are not serious in pursuing the appeal, I proceed to take up the appeal for hearing and decision on merits.
The brief facts of the case are that adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 16,82,086/ - as ineligible cenvat credit with interest and imposed penalty equal to the demand under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 13 of CCR 2002. On appeal by the respondent -assessees, the lower appellate authority vide impugned order partly upheld the order to the extent of Rs. 1,97,241/ - cenvat credit availed on the capital goods and a penalty of Rs. 98,620/ - in respect of simultaneous availment of cenvat credit and depreciation from Income Tax on the ground that they have produced revised IT returns for the years 2000 -01 and 2001 -02 and original return for 2002 -03. Revenue filed appeal against that portion order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case to the lower authority on the simultaneous availment of cenvat credit and depreciation.

(3.)HEARD Ld. AR who reiterates the grounds of appeal as well as the findings of the adjudicating authority. He states that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that respondents have filed revised IT returns whereas this fact has already been discussed by the adjudicating authority vide para 15.4 of his order. He also submits that the adjudicating authority has rightly disallowed as respondents have claimed depreciation from the Income Tax department for the relevant period and also availed modvat credit on the capital goods. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST Bangalore Vs. Suprajit Engineering Ltd. : 2010 (253) ELT 369 (Kar.) and the Tribunal's decision in Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE Vadodara -I : 2010 (262) ELT 753 (Tri. -Ahmd.).
;


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