9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oha. On 1-6-06, General Manager of the Appellant s company addressed a letter to the Supdt. of Central Excise, Range - Amroha informing him that their head office team visited the Amroha factory on 30th and 31st May 06 and conducted physical stock verification of sugar godown, in the course of which shortage of 1826 qtls. was found and that they are prepared to deposit Central Excise Duty on this quantity and debit it in the R.G.I Register. The Central Excise Duty on 1826 qtls. was paid on 2-6-06. On receipt of the communication from the Appellant, the Central Excise Range Officer also deputed a Central Excise team for stock verification, in course of which, another shortage of 87 qtls. was found. On this quantity also, he duty was paid on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , there cannot be intention on their part to evade the duty when the entire duty on the shortage had been paid immediately after it was detected and duty payment was much before the issue of SCN and that when bulk of the shortage of 1826 qtls. had been detected by the Appellant themselves, no mala fide can be attributed to them. He also cited the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Best Undertaking v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2007 (213) E.L.T. 202 wherein it was held that the Appellant being a local authority constituted under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 and as such a State under Article 12 of Constitution of India, there cannot be any motive on their part to evade the duty and therefore, there is no justification of imposition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning to stock of 2002-03 season. The Appellant is a Govt. Undertaking and from the records, it is clear that the major portion of the shortage 1826 qtls. had been detected by the Appellant about which they promptly informed the Department and on the very next day, they also paid the duty on this quantity. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the Appellant cannot be accused of wilful contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules with intention to evade the duty and the penalty under Section 11AC is not called for. 4. In view of these circumstances, the impugned order upholding penalty on the Appellant under Section 11AC is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Order dictated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
