9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 168 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty u/s 11AC - Suppression of value of goods - Intention to evade duty - Held that - appellant has not disclosed the fact regarding consideration amount received in respect of cleaning of raw material. As this expenditure is on the cleaning of raw material which is further used in the manufacture of goods hence it will become part of the assessable value of the goods cleared on payment of appropriate duty. As this fact was not brought to the notice of the Revenue we therefore find no infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant did not contest the demand before the lower authority. The appellant's argument was that they charged an amount for cleaning materials used in manufacturing goods, and this amount should be added to the assessable value of the goods. They claimed that since appropriate duty was paid on the goods, the recipients should be entitled to credit for the duty paid. The appellant contended that there was no intent to evade payment of duty, and therefore, they should not be liable for any penalty. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the appellant did not disclose the consideration received for cleaning charges to the customers. The Revenue discovered this discrepancy through an audit by the department, as it was not disclosed to them. The Revenue maintained that the penalty was rightly imposed based on this non-disclosure. The Tribunal found that the appellant indeed did not disclose the consideration received for cleaning raw materials, which should have been included in the assessable value of the goods cleared after paying the appropriate duty. Since this fact was not brought to the attention of the Revenue and was only discovered through an audit, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
|
