9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 7072.720 KLTs of High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD) lying with them prior to the presentation of Budget 1999-2000 on 28-2-1999 by charging enhanced rate of basic excise duty @ 16% and additional duty of excise @ ₹ 1000/- PKL imposed vide Clause 133 read with 2nd Schedule to the Finance Bill w.e.f. 27-2-1999 (midnight). However, stock of HSD sold had suffered duty at the time of clearance from the refinery @ 15% Adv. and thus, the excess excise duty recovered by the appellants from the customers was ₹ 74,69,601/-. The excess amount realised by the appellants from the customers in respect of sale of pre-budget stock of HSD was deposited by them with the central excise department on 1-4-1999 in compliance of the provisions of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f budget for 1999-2000 that on 27-2-1999, - in the budget 1999-2000 presented on 27-2-1999, the rate of duty on HSD had been increased, that pre-budget stock of HSD was sold at higher price which included the central excise duty at the post-budget rate, that since the appellant while selling the pre-budget stock of HSD during the period after 27-2-1999 had realised more amount of central excise duty than the amount which has been paid as central excise duty, the excess amount charged by them from the customers was paid to the Department on 1-4-1999, that the appellants have fully complied with the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, according to which any amount collected by an assessee from the customers as central excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of non-levy, short-levy on non-levy short or erroneous refund of duty on account of any fraud, mis-statement, wilful suppression of facts, etc. on the part of the appellants. On being asked from the Departmental Representative, he fairly stated that there is no such allegation against the appellants. Since in this case, the appellants had complied with the provisions of Section 11D and there is no allegation of evasion of duty against them by taking recourse to fraud, wilful misstatement, etc. penalty under Section 11AC is not invokable and hence, the penalty under Section 11AC imposed on the appellants was not called for. The Commissioner s order imposing penalty on the appellant under Section 11AC is, therefore, set aside and the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
