9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC are in existence and therefore prima facie penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules could have been imposed. Total duty involved may be around Rs.13 lakhs on the goods and redemption fine of more than Rs.21.65 lakhs has been imposed for redeeming the goods, in my opinion, if the appellant deposits an amount of Rs.2/- lakhs that should be suf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voice and accounted for only one consignment in respect of each invoice. It was admitted by the authorized signatory of the appellant also. Taking a view that excess stock over and above the daily stock account was maintained to facilitate removal without payment of duty, the goods were seized and proceedings were initiated. As regards unaccounted clearance under duplicate invoice, the learned AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Gujarat in the case of Prince Multiplast Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 48 (Guj.). He submits that in this case, the Hon ble High Court took the view that if the ingredients contemplated under Section 11AC are non-existence, penalty under Rule 25 cannot be invoked since Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules starts with the words subject to the provisions under Section 11AC . 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es in maintaining excess account over and above the stock is with an intention to evade duty. 5. I have considered the submissions and I find myself in agreement with the learned AR s submission that in this case the ingredients contemplated for imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC are in existence and therefore prima facie penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules could have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) within eight weeks from today and report compliance to the Commissioner (A) on or before 21.2.2014. The Commissioner (A) is requested to hear the appeal and decide the issue on merits after noting compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit ordered hereinabove. It is made clear that the Commissioner (A) need not take into account the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
