9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for the provisional assessment nor paid excise duty when the escalated bills were raised or payment was received - A part of excise duty was paid only when it was pointed out by the DGAE - findings clearly show that the Assessee wanted to evade duty. These findings have been upheld by the Tribunal. There is no illegality in these findings. In view of this it is held that the Assessee is liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Section 11AC was inserted in the Act with effect from 28-9-1996, that is to say that the penalty under Section 11AC of the Act could only be imposed w.e.f. 28-9-1996. In view of the same, only penalty equal to the amount of the excise duty short-paid for the period from 28-9-1996 to 31-8-1998 can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the escalated bills of the goods amounting to ₹ 13,26,410/-. 5. The Assessee paid a part of the duty, namely, ₹ 6,04,252/- but did not pay the remaining part of the duty. 6. The Adjudicating Officer (the AO) issued a show cause notice dated 23-3-2000 to the Assessee to show cause as to why the excise duty of ₹ 13,26,410/- be not imposed upon it and the duty of ₹ 6,04,252/- already paid be appropriated as well as the penalty be imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) and under Section 11AC of the Act. 7. The Assessee showed cause. However, the AO by his order dated 27-9-2001 confirmed the notice and imposed penalty of the amount equal to duty and ₹ 50,000/- under Section 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the appellant has already paid the excise duty amounting to ₹ 6,04,252/- voluntarily on 16-11-1999 in light of demand of duty ₹ 13,26,410/- prior to passing the original order dated 27-9-2001 by the adjudicating authority. (ii) Whether under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, penalty for short levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases can be imposed with retrospective effect in the instant case of appellant where the demand of duty is made from period 26-6-1995 to 31-8-1998 and the provision of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is substituted w.e.f. 28-9-1996 by Section 76 of the Finance (2) Act 1996 (33 of 1996). THE DECISION 13. The AO has recorded a finding that : The Assessee did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
