CCE Vs. SHRI RAM DIESELS (INDIA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned DR on behalf of the Revenue. The respondent filed written submission and requested to decide the matter in their absence. After hearing the learned DR and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Central Excise Officers during the stock verification detected shortage of inputs and the respondent immediately reversed the credit of Rs. 20,080/ -. The adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for contravention of the rules. The appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty from Rs. 10,000/ - to Rs. 5,000/ -. The contention of learned DR is that Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 provides minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/ - and therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified to reduce the penalty. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Lucknow v. Sarjoo Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. reported in 2006 (204) ELT 478 (Tri. Del.).

(2.) IT is seen from the impugned order that Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is contravention of the rules and therefore complete waiver of penalty cannot be considered since the respondent reversed the credit after detection by the Central Excise officer. The respondent in the written submission relied upon the decisions which are related to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. I agree with the contention of the learned DR that Rule 13 provides the minimum penalty of Rs. 10,000/ -. Therefore, the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the provision of Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set -aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is restored. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.