9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 11AC of the Act - Larger Bench of the Tribunal finds that the applicant have suppressed the relevant facts during the earlier period should be applied to the present period also inasmuch as for the period from 1.4.2000, the appellant has not disclosed the relevant details to the department and failed to furnish correct details in the declarations filed under Rule 173C of Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty was not contested before the Commissioner (Appeals). They challenged the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty from 3,59,555/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The present appeal seeks setting aside the penalty of Rs.10,000/- sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the interest demand. 3.1. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no suppression of facts, demand of interest prior to 11.5.2001 under Section 11AB of the Act is not justified. 4. The learned Superintendent (AR) submits that during the period from 1997 to 31.3.2000, the appellants were under compound levy scheme. The finding of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal that they have suppressed the relevant facts during the earlier period should be applied to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, in view of the decisions prevailing during the said period, the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). It is fairly submitted by the learned Superintendent (AR) that the department has not filed any appeal against the reduction of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, we do not find any reason to set aside the penalty or reduce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
