9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the assessee has two factories and manufactures Auto parts and availed of exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 for the clearances of excisable goods made from both the units during the financial year 2000-2001; that while declaring the aggregate value of clearance of all excisable goods during the preceding financial year 1999-2000, they did not include the value of goods which were received back under the provisions of Rule 173-H of the Central Excise Rules as they bona fidely believed that the same was not includible in the value of the clearance; that they, on being pointed out, had voluntarily paid the duty Rs. 3,71,505 and they never contested the levy of the duty; that the circumstances which led them no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty imposed is on very high side and harsh and should be reduced to the minimum possible. 3.1 On the other hand, Ms. Krishna Mishra, learned SDR, submitted that the Commissioner Appeal while allowing the Modvat credit in respect of rejected goods received in the factory observed that the Adjudication order does not discuss the process undertaken and whether the rejected goods were subjected to the process of re-manufacture. Accordingly, the adjudicating officer is directed to allow Modvat credit if the condition laid down by the Hon ble Tribunal in the aforesaid judgment is satisfied. Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E [2000 (119) E.L.T. 711 (T)]. 3.2 She mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) however, set aside the penalty of Rs. 39, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggregate value of clearance of all the goods during the preceding year which resulted in non payment of Central Excise duty. The learned SDR has correctly pointed out that the proviso to Section 11A of the Act was specifically invoked in the show cause notice in as much as the fact of suppression and misdeclaration were clearly mentioned in the notice. Accordingly, penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is imposable on the assessee. However, as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Escort JCB case, limit fixed under Section 11A is the maximum limit and it is not mandatory that in all cases such maximum should be imposed as penalty. Authority is having a discretion to impose lesser penalty. In view of the facts and cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
