Tribunal Upholds Duty Demand in Cenvat Credit Appeal, Penalties VacatedThe appeal addressed the admissibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on tattoos used under a sales promotion scheme. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand within the normal limitation period but found no penalty imposable. The appellant's request to vacate the penalty was granted, emphasizing that the duty demand fell within the normal limitation period. The Tribunal ruled that the duty demand was justified, interest was upheld, and the penalty was set aside. Issues involved: Admissibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on tattoos used under sales promotion scheme; imposition of penalty.

Admissibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on tattoos:
The appeal addressed the issue of admissibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on tattoos used by the assessee under the sales promotion scheme for finished goods during the period from April 2003 to December 2003. The Tribunal had previously ruled on a similar issue for the appellant for the period from October 2001 to March 2003, concluding that the appellant was not eligible for the credit on merits. However, it was established that the duty demand was within the normal period of limitation, and no penalty was imposable. In the current case, the appellant sought the vacation of the penalty imposed, emphasizing that the duty demand fell within the normal period of limitation.

Imposition of penalty:
The facts of the present case were acknowledged to be identical to a previous case decided by the Tribunal, where it was determined that the demand of duty was sustainable but no penalty was imposable. Based on the reasons outlined in the earlier order dated 04.07.2008, the Tribunal held that the demand of duty was justified, while the penalty was deemed not imposable. Consequently, the appeal was rejected concerning the demand of duty and interest, while the penalty was set aside. - M/s Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-III
Central Excise
2009 (9) TMI 934 - CESTAT DELHI - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 149 (Tri. - Del.)
CESTAT DELHI - AT
Dated:- 17-9-2009
Excise Appeal No. 5981 of 2004 - Final Order No. 729/2009-EX
Central Excise
-
Shri R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R. K. Verma, DR ORDER Per M. Veeraiyan: This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner No. 24/2004 dated 31.8.2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the issue in this appeal relates to admissibility of cenvat credit of duty paid on the tattoos which were used by the assessee under the sales promotion scheme in respect of finished goods. The present dispute relates to the period from April 2003 to December 2003. The very same issue relating to the same appellant for the period from October 2001 to March 2003 came before the Tribunal and it has been held by the order dated 04.07.2008 reported in 2009 (235) ELT 850 (Tri. Del.), that the appellant was not eligible for the credit on merits but the duty was demandable only within the normal period of limitation and that no penalty was imposable. In the present case, it is submitted that the duty demand is within the normal period of limitation. The learned Advocate seeks vacation of the penalty imposed on them. 4. Learned DR agrees that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of their case decided by the Tribunal on 04.07.2008 cited supra. 5. Following the reasons stated in the earlier order dated 04.07.2008 of the Tribunal, we hold that the demand of duty is sustainable but the penalty is not imposable. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected in so far as demand of duty and interest is concerned. As far as the penalty is concerned, the same is set aside.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders