9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue during the course of investigation. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. Further, I find that appellant has paid only duty and not interest, hence as per the provisions of section 11 AC of the Act, appellants are required to pay penalty equivalent to duty. I also find that appellant has relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rituraj Pipes & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (8) TMI 878 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT). The facts of the said decision are not relevant to the facts of this case as in that case there was shortage of inputs which was found during the course of investigation but in this case apart from the shortage of inputs, it is admission on the part of the appellant that they have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally, investigating was conducted in their factory on 10.4.2009, a show cause notice was issued by invoking extended period of limitation and the said case was adjudicated and duty demand was paid by them. Therefore, subsequent show cause notice cannot be issued by invoking extended period of limitation, therefore, penalty on the appellant is not imposable. He further submits that Revenue has failed to allege to whom the appellant has sold the goods and the date of removal of the goods. Therefore, penalty is not imposable. He further submits that the entire amount of duty has been paid before issuance of show cause notice, theretofore, penalty is not imposable as held by Hon ble High Court in the case of Rituraj Pipes Plastic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rightly invoked. 7. Further I find that when there is an admission of removal of inputs without payment of duty and that fact came in the knowledge of Revenue during the course of investigation. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is rightly invoked. Further, I find that appellant has paid only duty and not interest, hence as per the provisions of section 11 AC of the Act, appellants are required to pay penalty equivalent to duty. I also find that appellant has relied upon the decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rituraj Pipes Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The facts of the said decision are not relevant to the facts of this case as in that case there was shortage of inputs which was found during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
