TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order per : Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral)]. - The Revenue has filed this appeal impugning the order (Annexure P-3) dated 14-11-2007 [2008 (224) E.L.T. 73 (Tri.-Del.)], passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') vide which the penalty imposed upon the respondents was set aside and it was held that there was no clandestine removal of any input which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se notice and had admitted their liability to pay the duty, but challenged the penalty imposed on them before the Commissioner, Central Excise. The Commissioner vide his order (Annexure P-2) dated 30-9-2005, maintained the penalty as imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, however, he also imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- for violation of Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 3. The responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y and hence it cannot be said that there was any intention on part of the respondents to evade the payment of duty on the aforementioned inputs. 5. This Court while admitting the appeal had framed the following question of law :- "Whether the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is correct in law for setting aside the imposition of penalty equivalent to the amount of duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bject to evaporation process and hence there could have been a shortfall of this input on account of evaporation and therefore, the respondents cannot be held liable for any imposition of penalty, specially, when they have already paid the duty even prior to the issuance of show cause notice. As far as shortage of PVC compound is concerned, we find that there is a marginal shortfall of 0.18%, whic....