9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (3) TMI 689 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Adjudication of show-cause notice - Demand of duty - Penalty imposition - Interest recovery - Extended period of limitation invokability - Suppression of facts - Wilful misstatement - Intent to evade payment of duty - Duty payment before show-cause notice - Levy of interest on duty - Imposition of penalty Analysis: The original authority confirmed a demand of duty and imposed a penalty against the assessee under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, along with ordering interest recovery under Section 11AB. The assessee, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), challenging the demand of duty on the grounds of invokability of the extended period of limitation due to the absence of suppression of facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this ground after scrutinizing relevant records, including RT12 returns and correspondence between the assessee and departmental authorities. It was concluded that the assessee had not wilfully suppressed or misstated any fact to evade duty payment, leading to setting aside of the demand of duty for the extended period. The appellate authority also agreed with the assessee that if duty was paid before the show-cause notice, no interest could be levied under Section 11AB, and no penalty could be imposed under Section 11AC. The Revenue challenged these findings in the present appeal. The learned DR reiterated the grounds of appeal, arguing that the assessee had not immediately debited differential duty or mentioned it in RT12 returns, thus suppressing facts to evade duty payment. However, as the appellant failed to produce any RT12 return copies, and the lower appellate authority's finding was based on a scrutiny of relevant RT12 returns, the decision to vacate the demand of duty for the extended period had to be upheld. Consequently, there was no basis for the application of Section 11AB or Section 11AC in this case. In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority.
|
