2008 (1) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has raised the following substantial question of law: "Whether penalty and interest can be waived in toto on the sole ground that duty has been deposited before issue of show cause notice when the Central Excise law does not provide for the same and especially when the Hon'ble Tribunal themselves has been distinguishing their ruling in the case of CCE vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd.(2004)(168) ELT 466)?" Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing of Plastic Sacks/Plastic fabric falling under Chapter 39 of the schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is availing the facility of MODVAT credit on inputs. The Central Excise Preventive staff visited the factory of the assessee on 5.2.1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the respondent has taken MODVAT credit by fraud and willful mis-statement. 4. On the other hand, the respondent-assessee had submitted that it was a technical breach for which no penalty was imposable. The Commissioner (Appeals ) Central Excise vide his order dated 29.1.2004modified the original order dated 27.11.2000 of the adjudicating authority and enhanced the penalty from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.3,25,456/- under Rule 57 (I) (5) of the Central Excise Rules 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise also ordered for charging of interest under Rule 57(I)(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal.&nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Excise Commissionerate, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana vs. M/s. Jindal Polyvin Pipes and another), CEA No.22 of 2007 decided on 10.5.2007 (The Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana vs. M/s TR Industries and another ) and CEA No.26 of 2007 decided on 16.8.2007 (Commissioner of Central Excise,Ludhiana vs.  M/s. Sigma Steel Tubes and another)- 2007 (218) E.L.T. 657(P&H). 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. This Court while deciding CEA No.13 of 2005 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/s. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. and another (supra) remanded the matter to the Tribunal after discussing the provisions of Section 11(A)(C) and observed in the opera....