9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 944 - AT - Central ExciseImposition of penalty - benefit of N/N. 1/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 as amended - demand of excess duty without availing the CENVAT credit - HELD THAT - In the present case appellant has collected the duty from its customers and not deposited the same with the Government amounts to suppression of fact with intent to evade duty. Further, I find that the appellant have also not filed returns for which he has been imposed penalty. I also find that the appellant has deposited ₹ 8,43,829/- during the course of investigation which has been appropriated in the impugned order. The original authority has imposed equal penalty of ₹ 20,31,243/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the firm and also imposed equal penalty on Partner Shri M. A. Mathew under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which according to me is on a very higher side because once the equal penalty has been imposed on the firm, the imposition of penalty of ₹ 20,31,243/- on the Partner is not justified and therefore the penalty reduced to ₹ 1,00,000/- on Shri M. A. Mathew, Partner of the firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) and confirmation of Order-in-Original - Allegations of evasion of Central Excise duty and non-filing of statutory returns - Imposition of penalties on the firm and the partner - Applicability of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 Analysis: The case involved two appeals challenging the rejection of the appellant's appeal and confirmation of the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner (A). The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing Ready Mix Concrete, was accused of evading Central Excise duty and not filing statutory returns. The appellant had paid a portion of the duty after an investigation was initiated. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties on both the firm and the partner. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal of the partnership firm and held that the partner did not file an appeal due to non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit towards the penalty imposed on him. The appellant argued that financial difficulties prevented them from paying the duty as proposed in the show-cause notice. They contended that the penalties imposed on the firm and the partner were unwarranted. The appellant admitted the lapse of not filing returns on time but disputed the imposition of penalties. The appellant also questioned the equal penalty imposed on the partner, which was not mentioned in the show-cause notice. On the other hand, the respondent defended the impugned order, stating that the duty collected from buyers was not paid to the Government, indicating an intention to evade payment. The respondent argued that penalties were rightly imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. The respondent invoked Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules against the partner for his involvement in the duty evasion. After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Judicial Member found that the appellant had collected duty from customers but failed to deposit it with the Government, constituting suppression of facts to evade duty. The appellant's failure to file returns also led to the imposition of penalties. The Judicial Member reduced the penalty imposed on the partner, considering the already imposed penalty on the firm. The decision upheld the other demands on the firm, dismissing the appeal. In conclusion, the Judicial Member upheld the impugned order, reducing the penalty on the partner while maintaining the other demands on the firm. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 20/06/2019.
|
