TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.2007 made by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) disposing of appeal Nos. E/1015/2000 and E/1016/2000. The Excise Department is aggrieved by the reduction of penalty amount from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the CESTAT. The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, we find that in a sense, there are cross appeals, and therefore, it would be appropriate if they are disposed of by common judgment and order. 3. Excise Appeal No. 28/2008 was admitted on 02.02.2009 on the following substantial questions of law:- "(1) Whether the penalty leviable under Rule 57 1 (1)(iv) of Central Excise Rules 1944 is mandatorily to be imposed and whether there is d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Central Excise Act, was specifically raised by and on behalf of the assessee. He submits that it is the case of the assessee that there was no evasion in the sense that the credit which was availed, was never in fact utilized by the assessee. 6. Mr. Srivastava, learned Counsel submits that though there may have been some deviations, from the prescribed procedure, there was absolutely no case of fraud or suppression with any intent to evade Central Excise duty. He points out that, in fact, necessary intimations were sent to the department informing the department very clearly of the procedure which was being adopted by the assessee. For all these reasons, he submits that the assessment which commenced beyond the prescribed period of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed and the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- restored. 10. The rival contentions are fall for our determination. 11. According to us, there is substantial material on record to suggest that the issue of limitation as prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was not only raised but was also argued by the assessee before the CESTAT. However, from the perusal of the impugned judgment and order, we find that there is no consideration, much less, any sufficient consideration of this crucial issue which is undoubtedly a jurisdictional issue in a matter of this nature. 12. The records indicate that even after the impugned judgment and order was filed, the assessee immediately applied for rectification pointing out that the issue of limit....