9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Biradar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.A. Sayyed, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records, we find that, in adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 27-1-2000, the original authority had confirmed a demand of duty of Rs. 1.35 lakhs against the assessee under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and imposed on them equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Interest on duty under Section 11AB was also demanded. Besides this, a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the assessee under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules. An amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs which was voluntarily dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy of the TR-6 challan evidencing payment of the said amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Learned JDR submits that the payment of part of the duty prior to issuance of show-cause notice and payment of the balance amount later is not at all material insofar as the assessee's penal liability under Section 11AC is concerned. In this connection, he has relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills - 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 4. With regard to the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the maximum penalty prescribed at the relevant point of time under Rule 226 was Rs. 2,000/- and that the other pro visions of Central Excise Rules invoked by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early spelled out in Section 11AC of the Act." 6. The learned counsel has made an endeavour to distinguish the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills case (supra) by submitting that the proviso to Section 11AC was not examined by the apex Court unlike in the case of Exotic Associates case which was considered by the Gujarat High Court. The scope of Section 11AC was comprehensively considered by the apex Court in Dharamendra Textile Processors case and the view taken in that case was clarified by the Court in Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills case. It is difficult for us to assume that any proviso to Section 11AC was left out by the Apex Court. 7. In that view of the matter, we sustain the penalty equal to duty imposed on the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
