TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (12) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Their consultant has, in a fax-letter dated 21.12.2010, requested for adjournment of hearing on the ground that he is undergoing medical treatment for chest congestion due to viral infection/severe cold and hence unable to appear today. This request for adjournment is not supported by any medical certificate. From the records, it appears that, when the appeals arose for hearing on 18.11.2010, a similar letter was faxed by the consultant for adjournment of hearing. In that letter also, he stated that he was suffering from viral infection. For the ends of justice, this Bench, on that date, granted adjournment. Today, again, the consultant seeks adjournment on more or less the same ground. This time, he has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) granules as well as on capital goods. It also demanded duty of Rs.13,448/- from unit No.1 on the ground of undervaluation of HDPE/PP fabrics cleared by them as waste and scrap. An amount of Rs.2,74,800/- paid earlier by unit No.1 was appropriated towards the said demands. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalties equal to the duty amounts on unit No.1 under various rules. It also ordered recovery of interest on the aforesaid amounts of duty under Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. In an appeal filed by the assessee in respect of unit No.1, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the following order:- (i) Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) against the aforesaid addendum to the order-in-appeal, but that appeal was rejected vide order no. A/253/2010/SMB/C-IV dated 2.6.2010. 4. In the assessees appeal, as already indicated, the challenge is against the demand of duty of Rs.1,15,864/- (inclusive of education cess) in respect of unit No.1 which was found to have wrongly availed CENVAT credit to the said extent on LLDPE/PP granules. Penalties of Rs.1,15,864/- and Rs.13,448/- are also under challenge in this appeal. On a perusal of the impugned order, I find that unit No.1 was found to have availed CENVAT credit on LDPE granules without receiving the goods in the factory and that the non-receipt of the input in the factory was admitted by the party. I further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onfiscation is not necessary for a penalty on the party. Liability of the goods for confiscation is enough. This was correctly found by the lower authorities. The Rules then in existence provided that the party, who rendered such goods liable to confiscation, be penalised. In this view of the matter, I have no reason to interfere with the penalties imposed on the assessee. The assessees appeal stands dismissed. 5. The Revenues appeal is also devoid of merits. The appellant has grievances as against unit No.2 only. One of the grievances is that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not discuss leviability of interest on the amount of duty confirmed against the party. The Revenue, however, has not c....