2011 (2) TMI 905 - AT - Central Excise

Exemption - Notification No.8/03-CE dt. 1.3.03 - Used invoices of another firm to clear excisable goods manufactured by assessee - M/s.Poly Moulds was opened in the same premises with the same machineries - It is clear that same work force was utilized for manufacturing excisable goods and the goods were cleared using invoices of M/s.Poly Moulds - The appellants have not placed any valid reason why a second firm was shown to have been operating from the same premises with the same machineries and same work force - The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that it was a device to evade revenue is reasonable - Merely because the appellant paid duty before issue of show cause notice penalty under Section 11AC cannot be waived - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding duty liability and penalty imposition under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding duty liability and penalty imposition. The appellant was found to have crossed the exemption limit and used invoices of another firm to clear excisable goods. The original authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the partners of both firms involved. The department appealed seeking equal penalty on the appellant firm, which was granted by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The consultant for the appellant argued that the duty was paid before the show cause notice, and the delay in registration should have been considered. Additionally, they requested the option to pay concessional penalty under Section 11AC based on a Delhi High Court decision. The department reiterated the Commissioner's findings.

The Tribunal noted that a second unit was operating from the same premises with the same resources, indicating an attempt to evade revenue. The Commissioner's conclusion of evasion strategy was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that paying duty before the notice does not warrant waiving the penalty. The partners' penalties were not contested, and the main appellant was deemed the primary party involved in the evasion.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 11AC but granted the appellant the option to pay a reduced penalty amount within 30 days. Failure to pay within the specified time would result in the original penalty amount being due. The Tribunal's decision provided clarity on the penalty imposition and the appellant's payment options, ensuring compliance with the Central Excise Act.