9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 640 - HC - Central ExciseDemand on the ground that the appellant did not contest the duty confirmation - Before the Commissioner (Appeals) also no serious objection was raised by the Appellant and even the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed in his order that the clandestine removal was admitted by the Appellant in the statement. Based on these observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the CESTAT while disposing of the rectification application has observed that it is not open for the Appellant to contend before the CESTAT that the duty demand is wrongly levied - Held that - no substantial questions of law arises from the order of the CESTAT and hence this Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to duty confirmation before Commissioner (Appeals) 2. Confirmation of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 3. Confirmation of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to duty confirmation before Commissioner (Appeals) The Appellant challenged an order levying central excise duty and penalty before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner confirmed the duty amount and penalty, noting the admission of clandestine removal by the Appellant in their statement. The Appellant did not initially challenge this order before the CESTAT. However, upon the Central Excise Department's appeal, the Appellant filed cross-objections challenging the duty demand. The CESTAT observed that the Appellant did not contest the duty confirmation before the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the cross-objection. The Appellant argued that they did challenge the duty demand, but the CESTAT upheld its decision, stating the Appellant cannot now claim the duty confirmed was wrong. Issue 2: Confirmation of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 The Appellant contested the penalty imposed under various provisions of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty with some modifications. The CESTAT, while disposing of the rectification application, noted that the Appellant mainly contested the penalty and admitted clandestine removal and duty demand. The Appellant argued against the penalty reduction by the CESTAT, citing judgments of the Apex Court. The High Court observed that the Appellant primarily challenged the penalty, as duty was paid before the show-cause notice. The Court agreed with the lower authorities that the Appellant cannot now dispute the duty demand and penalty. The Court had already remanded the penalty issue back to the CESTAT in a previous case. Issue 3: Confirmation of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 The judgment did not specifically address the confirmation of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The focus was primarily on the duty demand and penalty issues raised by the Appellant. The Appellant's arguments and the Court's decision centered on the challenge to duty confirmation and penalty imposition, with no substantial question of law found to warrant admission of the appeal or framing of specific questions. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating no substantial questions of law arose from the CESTAT's order. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of challenge to duty confirmation, confirmation of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the overall dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.
|
