COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. GREAVES COTTON LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two appeals before me, one filed by the assessee and the other by the department, both against the same order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In adjudication of a show -cause notice, the original authority had denied certain CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods to the assessee and asked them to pay interest thereon. It also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,91,826/ - (equal to amount of CENVAT credit) on the party under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In an appeal filed by the assessee, learned Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 25,000/ - while sustaining the order of adjudication. In the present appeal of the assessee, the challenge is against the denial of CENVAT credit and also against the penalty and demand of interest. In the Revenue's appeal, the appellant wants the penalty to be enhanced.

(2.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the assessee had taken CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods totaling to Rs. 1,91,826/ - during the material period. On verification of records, it appeared to the department that this credit had been wrongly taken. The department repeatedly asked the party to reverse it. Ultimately the assessee reversed the entire credit. Subsequently, a show -cause notice was issued for recovery of interest and for imposition of penalty. These proposals were not contested. However, the adjudicating authority gave the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which was made use of to request for some more time for filing a reply to the show -cause notice. But no replies were ever filed. In this scenario, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty against the assessee and appropriated the reversal of credit towards such demand. Penalty equal to duty was also imposed under Section 11AC. Interest on duty was also ordered to be recovered under Section 11AB. The appellate authority sustained this decision but with reduction of the quantum of penalty.

(3.) WITH regard to interest, the assessee has also cited a judgment 2006 (205) ELT 24. The citation is not complete, nor has a copy of the judgment been produced by the Counsel. With regard to penalty, the assessee has relied on : 2006 (196) ELT 285 (Tri -Bang), any copy of which is not available. The Counsel has not argued with reference to the above case law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee gets dismissed.