COMMR. OF S.T., MUMBAI Vs. HAZIRA MARINE ENGG. & CONST. MGMT. P. LTD.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Commr. of S.T., Mumbai
Hazira Marine Engg. And Const. Mgmt. P. Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
M.V.RAVINDRAN,MEMBER (J) -
(1.)These two appeals are filed by Revenue against the impugned orders of the adjudicating authority. Since the issue involved in the appeals is same, they are being disposed of by a common order. When the matter was called, the representative from the office of the respondent filed an application for adjournment of the matter. On perusal of the records we find that the appeals of Revenue are in a narrow compass hence we decline request for adjournment and take up the appeals for disposal.
(2.)Heard the learned D.R. and perused the records.
(3.)It is seen from the records that Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the adjudicating authority has incorrectly imposed penalties on the respondent under Sec. 76. Revenue's grievance is that the adjudicating authority should have imposed penalty as per the provisions of Sec. 76 of the Finance Act which is Rs. 200/ - per day or 2% of the tax per month which is higher. Learned D.R. was also tried to convince us that the adjudicating authority has not imposed penalties on improper availment of Cenvat credit by the respondent.
3.1 We find that against the very same orders -in -original, respondent was before this Tribunal in Appeals No. ST/306 & 307/2009 -Mum. Those appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal vide Order Nos. A/480 & 481/14/CSTB/C -I, dated 5 -3 -2014 by setting aside the demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. We also set aside the penalties imposed on the respondent and upheld the demands in respect of illegible Cenvat credit.
3.2 We find that these two cases do not have any merits inasmuch as, when the demand of Service Tax itself is set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 5 -3 -2014, nothing survives in these appeals. Accordingly, Revenue's contention that the adjudicating authority should have imposed penalties under Sec. 76 as per the provisions has no merits and is rejected.
3.3 Another argument made by the learned D.R. for non -imposition of penalty on ineligible Cenvat credit availed by the respondent. We find that the adjudicating authority had not imposed any penalty on the respondent. Against such non -imposition of penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there are no grounds of appeal in the appeal memoranda.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.