9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not granted an option to pay reduced penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11AC and therefore the same should be extended to them at this stage in the light of the decision K.P.Pouches Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India[2008 (1) TMI 296 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] deserves to be accepted - Decided against of assessee. - 865 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 28-4-2011 - Mr.M.Veeraiyan, J. Present for the Appellant: Shri R.Santhanam, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Anil Khanna, SDR PER: M.VEERAIYAN This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 399/CE/Appl/Ldh/2007 dated 3.1.2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that on 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage of finished goods and finished goods were cleared before 5.1.2005, the duty on the same was required to be paid by 5.2.2005 and they paid duty on 10.1.2005 itself. They would have prepared invoices and filed return and paid duty. Therefore, section 11AC should not be invoked. Since, this is a case where no show cause notice should have been issued, no penalty should be imposed. Alternatively, he submits that neither the original authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) gave an option to pay reduced penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11AC, and therefore at the most the penalty should be 25% of the duty involved. 5. Learned SDR submits that the shortage was accepted and clandestine removal has been admitted, and the duty involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals). Therefore, it is a clear case of admitted clandestine removal and provisions of section 11AC is clearly attracted. This is also not fit case for waiver issue of show cause notice on the ground that duty involved stands paid as it is case of removal without preparing invoices. 7. However, the alternative submission of the learned Advocate that the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have not granted an option to pay reduced penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11AC and therefore the same should be extended to them at this stage in the light of the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhiin the case of K.P.Pouches Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2008 (228) ELT 31 (Delhi), deserves to be accepted. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
