9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cover the Central Excise duty to be debited for clearance of the excisable goods effected during the period from June, 1993 to August, 1996 and the goods were cleared under debit balance i.e., without payment of Central Excise duty. It was observed that they had cleared their products without payment of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 21,05,32,987/- thereby deliberately violating the provisions of Rule 9(1) read with Rule 52 and Rule 173G(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, they were issued the show cause notices calling upon them to show cause why the Central Excise duty of the aforestated amount should not be demanded and recovered from them under Rule 9(2) and why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clearing their products under debit balance i.e., without payment of Central Excise duty but their customers are availing the Modvat credit which is highly irregular and contrary to the basic concept of Modvat scheme. The ld. Counsel for the appellants further stated that the short fall of duty has since been made up and therefore the stay petition relates only to the penalty amount of Rs. 42,20,000/- The reliance is further placed on the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1998 (104) E.L.T. 626 (Cal.)] and the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Indore v. M.P. State Industrial Corporation reported in [2000 (118) E.L.T. 554 (S.C.)]. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat credit which is a double blow to the Revenue. As regards the reliance placed on the above stated decisions, it is stated that the ratio of the same is relevant only when demand of duty or penalty imposed on any appellant in a particular proceedings is either contentious or debatable. The ratio of these judgments cannot be pressed into service where there is contumacious disregard of the statutory provisions and the facts are neither disputed nor disputable. In this view of the matter, it is contended that there is no prima facie case made out for waiver of the penalty amount imposed on the appellants 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. We find force in the submissions made before us on behalf of the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uyers. On these facts, therefore, the ratio of the aforestated judgments in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and CCE, Indore v. M.P. State Industrial Corporation, also do not appear to be applicable in the present case. Further more, the amounts of penalty imposed on the appellants being a pittance in comparison to the huge amounts of duty evaded and the gravity of the offence involved, we do not find it expedient to waive its pre-deposit. Consequently, we direct the appellants to make the pre-deposit of the penalty amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lacs only) on or before 30-9-2001. On making such deposit, the deposit of the balance amount of penalty shall stand waived and its recovery stayed till the disposal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
