(1.) This is an appeal filed by the department wherein the appellant prays for restoration of the penalty imposed on the respondent by the original authority. There is no representation for the respondent despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. I have examined the records and heard learned JDR who has reiterated the grounds of this appeal.
(2.) In adjudication of a show -cause notice which invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts by the respondent with intent to evade payment of duty, the original authority had imposed a total penalty of Rs. 78,481/ - on the party under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. A major part (Rs. 73,470/ -) of this penalty was imposed on the ground that the respondent had deliberately chosen not to reverse CENVAT credit of Rs. 73,470/ - on capital goods which were sent to a job worker, even though the job -worked goods were not received in their factory within the prescribed period of 180 days and on the further ground that the factum of non -reversal of the credit was suppressed by them. The remaining amount of penalty (Rs. 5,011/ -) was imposed on the ground that the respondent had, with intent to evade payment of duty to the extent of Rs. 5,011/ -, suppressed before the department the non -inclusion of the amortised value of the dies supplied by the buyer and used by the respondent in the manufacture of the goods subsequently cleared to the buyer. The order of adjudication was taken in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority, in respect of the first aspect (concerning penalty of Rs. 73,470/ -), found that nothing was suppressed from the department by the respondent and that the factum of removal of capital goods for repair (job work) and of non -receipt of the job -worked goods within 180 days had been brought on record. On the basis of this finding, the penalty of Rs. 73,470/ - imposed under Section 11AC of the Act on the respondent by the original authority was vacated by the appellate authority. I find that the above finding of the appellate authority has not been challenged in the present appeal of the Revenue. Therefore, the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with regard to the major part of the penalty cannot be interfered with.
(3.) In the result, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed.