9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suppressed the relevant facts from the departments and, hence, the penal provisions of Section 11AC would be attracted. As decided in case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) the same would be equal to the quantum of the duty demand confirmed, as there is no discretion either for the Adjudicating Authority or for the Appellate Authority to impose the lower penalty u/s 11AC. In favour of revenue - E/2632/2001 - A/981/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 24-8-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Shri Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri I. Baig, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)]. The facts leading to this appeal are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the land, building, plant and machinery of the appellant under Rule 173Q(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. This show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chhattisgarh vide order-in-original dated 27-9-2001 by which - (a) the duty demand as made in the show cause notice was confirmed against the appellant alongwith interest, and an amount of Rs. 6,04,252/- already paid before adjudication was appropriated towards this demand; (b) mandatory penalty of Rs. 13,26,410/- equal to the amount of duty short paid was imposed on the appellant under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944; and (c) penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (13) SCC 448 = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 1.4 In accordance with the directions of Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court the matter was heard today on the question of quantum of penalty under Section 11AC. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that while in terms of the provisions of Section 11AC in a case where short payment, non-payment or erroneous payment or duty has taken place due to fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of fact, etc. on the part of an assessee, penalty equal to the duty demand confirmed is imposable and in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well after the insertion of Section 11AC in the Central Excise Act, that the differential duty in respect of the clearances of mono block sleepers to railway become payable as soon as the differential amount on account of price escalation from back date was received by the appellant, that the appellant neither paid duty at the time of receiving the price differential nor informed the department about this and this non-payment of duty was detected only in course of scrutiny of their accounts by the department which was done on receipt of an intelligence by the department. He, therefore, pleaded that the penalty equal to the duty demand i.e. Rs. 13,26,410/- is imposable on the appellant as this is the duty chargeable on the price differential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
