9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to section 11AC should be extended in the light of the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of K.P.Pouches Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008 -TMI - 30328 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) - Appellant company is given an option to pay 25% of the penalty alongwith interest within a period of thirty days from today. - E/2502-2503/2008 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2011 - Mr.M.Veeraiyan, J. Present for the Appellant: Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Ms.R. Prasad, SDR PER: M.VEERAIYAN These two appeals are arising out of a common Order-in-Appeal No.138-139(RKS) CE/JPR-I/2008 dt.25.6.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority in so far as two appellants are concerned. 5. Learned Advocate assailed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) stating that the statement of Shri Sunil Mittal cannot be relied upon; that there is no admission by Shri Rakesh Goel. At any rate, imposition of penalty both under section 11AC and under Rule 25 on the appellant company is not justified. As per the allegation of the department as no goods were received, the director has not dealt with the goods and therefore no penalty can be imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 before amendment to the said Rules w.e.f.1.3.2007. 6. Learned DR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of credit and has challenged only penal action taken, the question of resisting demand before the Tribunal does not arise. The only question to be considered in this case is whether the penalty has to be sustained or not. 9. The statement of the representative of the supplier and the recipient company show that, on the preponderance of probability, the appellant company has merely received the invoices without receipt of the goods. Therefore the penalty on them is warranted. However, the submissions of the learned Advocate that there is no justification for separate penalties both under section 11AC and Rule 25 of the Rules appears reasonable and deserves to be accepted. The penalty of Rs.30,000/- imposed on the appellant company under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
