9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 617 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty u/s 11AC of CEA - Malafide intent present of not - appellant deposited entire duty with interest on being pointed out - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Vs. CST-II, Mumbai 2015 (11) TMI 1347 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that the appellant being a Government of India institute there cannot be any malafide intention for the reason that there is no individual, who can be benefited by taking wrong Cenvat Credit. Inasmuch as the appellant is admittedly a public sector undertaking, and also by appreciating the fact that no evidence stands produced by the Revenue indicating any intent on the part of the assessee, penalty cannot be imposed on appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: 1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable products, was registered with the department. The appellant cleared furnace oil without paying duty, which was later pointed out by audit officers during an audit. The appellant paid the differential duty and interest upon being notified. 2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant through a show-cause notice for the appropriation of duty and imposition of penalty. The appellant argued that the non-payment was not intentional and cited a Supreme Court decision to support their stance that being a public sector undertaking, there was no malafide intention to evade duty. 3. The adjudicating authority imposed duty equivalent to the amount not paid by the appellant. However, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions involving public sector undertakings, stating that it would be unreasonable to assume malafide intention on the part of such entities. The Tribunal highlighted that no evidence was presented by the Revenue indicating any intent to evade duty. 4. Relying on the precedents and considering the appellant's status as a public sector undertaking, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The decision was made based on the absence of evidence proving any malafide intention on the part of the appellant, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
