PARVATHY KAILASAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Early Hearing application, stay petition and appeal are directed against the Order -in original No. O -I -O No. 15/2008(CX)(PNR), dated 4 -7 -2008.

(2.) AFTER hearing both sides for some time on the Early hearing application and stay petition, we find that the issue being in a narrow compass, the appeal itself could be disposed off at this stage. Hence, waiving the condition of pre -deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal. Early hearing application for appeal is also allowed.

(3.) HEARD both sides and perused the records. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that one M/s. Thirven Steels Pvt. Ltd. holders of Central Excise registration having their factory at Venkatarajampet Village, Rajampet Mandal, Kadapa District (hereinafter referral to as assessee) manufacturers of MS ingots. The assessees availed CENVAT Credit on the raw materials used in the manufacture of MS ingots. On specific intelligence, it was noticed by the authorities that the assessee had imported scrap which was never brought into factory and was sold from the place of importation. The assessees were directed to provide the evidence of documents under which the scrap was transported. They could not provide the same. In the absence of any bills of entries, it was noticed that the assessees were de -stuffing the containers from the premises in the absence of any Central Excise officers due to which it was noticed that the inputs were not received in the assessees premises. Despite this the assessees produced many end use certificates issued by Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kadappa having jurisdiction over the factory. The authorities have taken action by issuance of show cause notice against the said assessee. Show cause notice was also issued to Smt. Parvathy Kailasam, Deputy Commissioner (Retd.) (appellant herein) why penalty should not be imposed on her under Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944/ Rule, 27 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 holding her responsible for omissions and commissions, of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001/2002. The appellant herein contested the show cause notice on various grounds including the ground that she issued the certificate in bona fide belief after verification of the statutory records. The adjudicating authority did not find merits in the contentions raised by the applicant and hence, he imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/ - under the Rule 210 of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 27 of the Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001 for the omissions and commissions of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder.