9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty till 28-2-06 in terms of Sr. No. 13 of Notification No. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-03. With the introduction of Budget effective from 1-3-2006, the said goods attracted duty of 8% ad valorem. However, the appellants continued to avail exemption notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, which was otherwise not available to them as the aggregate clearance value of excisable goods in the previous year has exceeded Rs. 4 crores. While reckoning the aggregate clearance value, the appellants had not taken into account the value of the goods which attracted Nil rate of duty during the preceding financial year. 3. The appellants were informed by their jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent vide his letter dated 16-5-06 that they w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in case of CCE Vapi v. M/s. Modison as reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 521 (Tri.-L.B.), laying down that for invoking Rule 173Q (1), mens rea is not one of the essential ingredients. Accordingly, he observed that inasmuch as Rule 25 is pari materia to Rule 173Q, the ratio of the above decision would apply. However, keeping in view that there was no intention to evade payment of duty, and the entire duty and interest was paid before issuance of show cause notice, he reduced the penalty in one case from Rs. 57,945/- to Rs. 15,000/- and in other case from Rs. 4,31,419/- to Rs. 1 lakh. The appellants have filed appeals for further reduction in the penalty. Revenue s appeals are for enhancement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods till 19-12-2006 without payment of duty is admittedly in contravention of the notification, though it may not be the intention of the appellant to do so. As already observed, the clauses of Rule 25, except Clause (d), does not require any mens rea for invocation of the same. Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced penalty to the extent of 25% approximately of the duty amount. I find that no further reduction is called for in these circumstances. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are rejected. 8. As regards the appeals filed by the Revenue, having already held that the provisions of Section 11AC are not attracted, there being no mens rea on the part of the assessee, enhancement of penalty to the extent of 100% is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
