COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four appeals filed by the Revenue and two filed by the assessee. The assessee have filed the appeals against the confirmation of demand, interest and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Revenue has filed the appeal for imposition of additional penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that during the course of investigation the Cenvat credit goods were found short on physical verification. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued for demand of duty on short found inputs and proposal for penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 13,15 of Central Excise Rules, 2002/2004. Thereafter the original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC. On appeal, by both the sides, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee but he has further imposed penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules apart from the penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved from the said order, both sides are again in appeal before this Tribunal, Revenue is on the ground that that further penalty under Rule 15(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2004 is to be imposed and the assessee is against the demand, interest and penalties.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned DR submitted that the penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise 1944 can be imposed separately and penalties under various provisions of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 can be imposed separately under various clauses of the contraventions made by the assessee in this case. With regards to the merits of the case, he submitted that the facts of this case are not identical to the earlier case and hence, the decision cannot be relied upon.