2013 (4) TMI 592 - AT - Central Excise

The present appeal seeks setting aside the penalty sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the interest demand as per the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act - Larger Bench of the Tribunal finds that the applicant have suppressed the relevant facts during the earlier period should be applied to the present period also inasmuch as for the period from 1.4.2000 the appellant has not disclosed the relevant details to the department and failed to furnish correct details in the declarations filed under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules 1994. Hence it is a clear case of intention to evade duty. -. Held that Considering the decision of the Larger Bench Tribunal do not find any reason to set aside the penalty or reduce the penalty. Appeal of the party fails and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of demand of differential duty
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Challenge against penalty and interest demand
- Suppression of relevant facts and intention to evade duty
- Applicability of provisions of Section 11AC of the Act
- Mis-declaration of price by adopting two sets of invoices
- Waiver of interest invoking provisions under Section 11AB(2)

Confirmation of Demand of Differential Duty:
The original authority confirmed the demand of differential duty and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The party appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the penalty imposed. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty but upheld the applicability of Section 11AC of the Act. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that Section 11AC was attracted due to the issuance of different sets of invoices indicating higher amounts compared to Central Excise invoices showing lower amounts.

Suppression of Relevant Facts and Intention to Evade Duty:
The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts as the department was aware of the practice prior to a certain date. However, the department contended that the appellant failed to disclose relevant details and furnish correct information, indicating an intention to evade duty. The Tribunal found that mis-declaration of price by using two sets of invoices supported the department's position, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Applicability of Provisions of Section 11AC of the Act:
The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act were applicable in this case due to the issuance of different sets of invoices. Despite the reduction of the penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal found no reason to set aside or further reduce the penalty, especially since the department did not appeal against the penalty reduction.

Mis-declaration of Price and Waiver of Interest:
The Tribunal upheld the mis-declaration of price through the use of two sets of invoices, which negated the possibility of waiving interest under Section 11AB(2). As a result, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the seriousness of mis-declaration and the consequent penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.