9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - E/1020/2004 - 1225/2010 - Dated:- 6-12-2010 - Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Savith V. Gopal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellants manufacture tractor parts, parts of earth moving equipment, steel tables and chairs. They crossed the small scale exemption limit of Rs. 50 lakhs during the year 1998-99 and 1999- 2000. They claimed that due to a bona fide mistake they omitted to pay the central excise duty during the relevant years but there was no suppression. The appellants have also stated that after their Accounts Executive realized in Apr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the appellants; it is clear that the appellants have submitted a file to the excise authorities containing audited Balance sheet for the period 1994-95 to 1998-99. The said letter also asks for further records from the appellants. As such, the department s stand that only after the visit of the excise officers to the factory on 11-5-2000 the fact of excess clearance came to light, is not entirely correct. Letter dated 8-5-2000 cited above does indicate that the appellants have approached the department in the first instance. 5. However, it was incumbent on the appellants to declare to the department, as soon as they exceeded the small scale exemption limit of Rs. 50 lakhs, in the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000. It was also incumbent on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty under Section 11AC of the Act are also justified. 7. Some leniency could have been shown to the appellants as they have come forward, though belatedly, to inform the department about crossing the exemption limit and non-payment of duty. But, unfortunately the statutory provision under Section 11AC requiring imposition of mandatory penalty provides no scope to distinguish between an assessee guilty of suppression and duty evasion who does not come forward to disclose the same later on and assessees like the present appellants who have made a disclosure subsequently. Since the law provides no scope for leniency, no such leniency can be shown to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
