9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 381X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uphold the order in so far as it relates to limitation also. Duty paying documents, namely, gate passes and classification declaration which is the declaration relating to rate of duty, both did not disclose the source of raw materials, while the rate of duty depended entirely on that fact. In this factual situation, the revenue is right in contending that there is deliberate suppression of facts, which attracts penalty. We, therefore, uphold the imposition of penalty. However, taking all the facts and circumstances into account, penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only). It is being pointed out that such a demand is clearly contrary to sub-clause (2) of Section 11AB itself. There is merit in this contention. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d but failed in adjudication. When that matter came up in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant did not contest the demand. It only contested the demand on the ground of limitation as well as penalty and interest. Therefore, the Commissioner did not go into the merits of the case at all. The present appeal is directed against that order-in-appeal of the Commissioner. 3. Before us, the learned counsel seeks to re-open the issue on merits. This cannot be permitted, since the appellant had conceded the issue before the lower authorities and for that reason the lower authorities had not gone into it. Particularly, so since it is a question of fact. 4. As to the issue of limitation, we find that appellant s duty paying doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses the contents of which are not same. It was, therefore, necessary for the assessee to be put on notice as to the exact nature of contravention for which the assessee was liable under the provisions of the 173Q. This not having been done the Tribunal s finding cannot be faulted. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. Learned counsel has also submitted that the appellant had not conceded the case on merits before the lower authorities and the Commissioner was in error in recording such a submission. We are not able to accept this position. First of all, if there was an error on the part of the Commissioner in recording the contention, the assessee should have raised that matter promptly before the appropri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking all the facts and circumstances into account, penalty is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only). 9. With regard to the demand for interest, the submission of the learned counsel is that demand has been made under Section 11AB. It is being pointed out that such a demand is clearly contrary to sub-clause (2) of Section 11AB itself. There is merit in this contention. However, that does not settle the dispute relating to interest. It is well settled that statutory interest will be attracted irrespective of whether the claim has been specifically made in the orders or not. Therefore, revenue will be at liberty to claim interest as permissible under the statute at the rates in force during various periods. 10. The appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
