COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CHANDRESH C. SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals as such they arise out of the common impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), all these appeals are decided and disposed by this common order. It appears that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad -I initiated the proceedings under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") by issuing the show -cause notice against the Company M/s. Doshion Ltd. and the respondents herein i.e. Pankaj Navnitlal Mehta, Authorized Signatory of the Company; Shri Chandresh C. Shah, General Manager (Accounts) and Shri Sanjay Patni, General Manager (Finance & Accounts) of the Company. By the aforesaid show -cause notice the Company M/s. Doshion Ltd. was directed to show cause as to why the Cenvat Credit of service tax involved on input service amounting to Rs. 1,51,51,730/ - (Cenvat Credit of Service Tax Rs. 1,48,67,947/ - + Cenvat Credit of Education Cess Rs. 2,80,997/ - + Cenvat Credit of Secondary and Higher Education Cess of Rs. 2,786/ -) availed and utilized by the Company during March 2005 and August 2007 should not be recovered from them underR.14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "CCR, 2004") read with Section 11A of Act. The Company was also called upon as to why the interest at prescribed rate should not be charged and recovered from them underR.14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11AB of Act. The Company was also called upon to show cause as to why the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act and sub -rule (3) ofR.15 of CCR, 2004 should not be imposed on them. That the respective respondents herein viz. Pankaj Navnitlal Mehta, Authorized Signatory of the Company; Shri Chandresh C. Shah, General Manager (Accounts) and Shri Sanjay Patni, General Manager (Finance & Accounts) were also served with the show -cause notices and were called upon to show cause as to why the penalty under sub -R.(3) ofR.15 of CCR, 2004 andR.26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "CER, 2002") should not be imposed on them.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Yogesh Ravani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the common appellant.