9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 915X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her manufacturer - M/s. Shivalaya Ispat Power Pvt. Ltd. by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, the DGCEI officers in follow up action also searched the premises of SSIPPL on 27-9-2006 in presence of panch witnesses. In the course of search some loose papers containing details of the goods dispatched from the factory were recovered. On detailed examination of those loose papers, the same were found to be containing the details of the clearances of sponge iron and on cross checking with the Central Excise records, it was found that those removals was not reflected in the Central Excise records and no invoices had been issued. The total quantity of sponge iron so removed was determined as 99.9 MT valued at ₹ 9,90,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on its Director, Shri Iqbal Razak Hingora. However, even prior to the issue of the show cause notice SSIPPL has deposited the entire amount of duty on 1-5-2007. The show cause notice had been served on the noticees on 20th December, 2007. After being served the show cause notice, SSIPPL also paid the interest and an amount equal to 25% of duty towards penalty on 21-1-2008. 1.2 The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original, dated 7-4-2008 by which the duty demand of ₹ 1,63,037/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Three Thousand and Thirty Seven) was confirmed along with interest against SSIPPL and the amount of ₹ 1,63,037/- already paid was appropriated towards this demand and beside this whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te evasion of duty by clandestine removal, that the Act of clandestine removal has been accepted by Shri Sukumar Ghosh, GM, SSIPPL as well as by the respondent Shri Iqbal Razak Hingora, Director of SSIPPL, that since the duty evasion had taken place with full knowledge of the respondent and respondent was directly involved with clandestine removal, he is liable for penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly extended the benefit of 1st proviso to Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, as in this case while the duty had been paid prior to the issue of show cause notice, the interest and penalty has been paid after the expiry of 30 days of the date of communication of the show cause notice, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing place by the reason of fraud, collusion, or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rule made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person to whom the show cause notice is served under proviso to Section 11A(1), may pay the duty in full or in part as may be accepted by him, together with the interest chargeable under Section 11AB and penalty equal to 25% of the duty specified in the notice or duty so accepted by such person, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the show cause notice. 1st proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11A states that if a person who has paid the duty in full together with interest and penalty under sub-section (1A) the proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
