2015 (10) TMI 1151 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - appellant had cleared certain goods under PA series of invoices without payment of duty - Held that - Appellant had paid the Central Excise duty alongwith interest, which has been appropriated towards the confirm duty and interest. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of imposition penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On a query of the Bench, the Learned Advocate submits that the Adjudicating Authority had given option to pay penalty 25% of the duty under Section 11 AC of the Act. It is noted that the demand relates to the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. The learned advocate placed the copy of Panchnama dated 24.04.2007 to substantiate that the documents were seized by the Department. I find that the evidence place by the Learned Advocate was available during the proceedings before the lower authorities and they have not placed this evidence before them. In any event, the Panchnama dated 24.04.2007 has no relation with the demand of duty for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. - No reason to interfere with order of lower authorities - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Clearance of goods without payment of duty under "PA" series of invoices during 2006-2007 and 2008-2009.
2. Confirmation of demand of duty, interest, and penalty by Adjudicating Authority.
3. Submission of Panchnama as evidence by the Appellant.
4. Appeal against penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellants were involved in the manufacture of P.P. medicines and were found to have cleared goods without paying duty under "PA" series of invoices during 2006-2007 and 2008-2009.

Issue 2: The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty, interest, and imposed a penalty equal to the amount of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

Issue 3: The Appellant's Advocate submitted that the appellant issued invoices for returned goods but failed to produce evidence before the lower authorities. The Advocate requested an opportunity to present the Panchnama dated 24.04.2007, indicating that the documents were seized by the Central Excise Authorities.

Issue 4: The appeal focused on contesting the penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority provided the option to pay a penalty of 25% of the duty amount under this section. The evidence presented, the Panchnama dated 24.04.2007, was deemed irrelevant to the duty demand for the period in question.

Issue 5: After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had paid the duty and interest, which were appropriated accordingly. The appeal against the penalty was rejected as the evidence presented was deemed irrelevant to the duty demand for the specified period. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, resulting in the rejection of the appellant's appeal.