9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 385/- on the appellants under Section 11A and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- under Rule 173Q. 4. It is pleaded in the appeal that the entire amount of inadmissible credit has been reversed even before the issuance of show cause notice and, therefore, no penalty is imposable. It is also claimed that show cause notice does not incorporate the clause asking the appellants as to why the extended period should not be invoked and, therefore, the demand cannot be confirmed by resorting to extended period [Ashok Engineering Work, Jaipur v. CCE, Jaipur - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 107]. 5. The challenge to imposition of penalty under Section 11AC also is made on the ground that short payment does not fall under the category of suppression of facts etc. and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out to the act of suppression by the appellants. There is no fixed terminology laid down in Section 11A or any format of show cause notice prescribed by any authority which requires that specific term or phrase should be used in the show cause notice, such as why the extended period should not be invoked and also does not specify the grounds on which it intends to invoke the extended period. This does not mean that, the appellants were not put to notice that the department intended, to invoke the extended period, as claimed by the appellants. Therefore, I hold that, the show cause notice has clearly complied with the requirement of Section 11A of the Act for extending larger period and there is no infirmity. 8. Having so concluded, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that there is no requirement of mens rea for imposition of penalty. The Tribunal s judgment in the case of Chankaya Plastics does not take into consideration the effect of the judgment of superior authority, as indicated above and I find that no such proposition exists in the provisions of Rule 173Q or Section 11A to support the said interpretation. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar as well as Bombay High Court judgment in Kirloskar Brothers (Supra), I hold that the lower authorities were justified in imposing penalties. Since there are no other prayer in the appeals, the appeal is rejected and the impugned order is sustained. - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
