2019 (6) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xemption notification. However, the investigations conducted by the Revenue revealed that they were not paying duty even after crossing the SSI exemption limit. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them resulting in passing of the impugned orders, confirming demand of duty and imposing penalties. 2. Ld. Advocate for the appellant is not disputing the fact that they crossed the small scale exemption limit and as such were required to pay duty on their final product for the excess clearances. However, he submits that bar code printing ribbon have been assessed by the authorities below under Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act 1944, he admits that the said goods are under section 4(A) but clarifies that since the same were bei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs. He clarifies that such credit stands rejected by the authorities below on the sole ground that the appellant is indulging in clandestine activity. He draws our attention to the Tribunal decision laying down that the benefit of Cenvat Credit is required to be extended even in the case of clandestine removal, in the case of Sridhar Paints Company P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & C.Excise, Hyderabad-III- 2006(198) ELT 514 (Tri-Bang.). He also relies on another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Heemanshu Traders Vs. CCE, Surat-2003 (153) ELT 119 (Tri-Delhi). Ld. advocate submits that all the documentary evidence showing payment of duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ability has been admitted by the appellants, who did not pay duty for four long years after crossing the SSI limit and Sh. Khanna was in overall control of the affairs of appellant. Hence, the penalty on Sh. Prem Khanna, M. D. is upheld and his appeal is therefore dismissed. Devender Singh Member (Technical) 8. In view of the difference of opinion emerging between Hon'ble Members on the issue of penalty on Sh. Prem Khanna, M. D. in appeal no. E/3226/2009, the registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble President for nominating the third Member for resolving the following: Difference of opinion:- Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the matter pertaining to penalty on Sh. Prem Khanna, M. D. should be ....