Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (5) TMI 1039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , one of the partners of appellant-firm but he could not furnish any plausible explanation for the shortage. Accordingly, the respondent-Revenue issued a show cause notice dated January 30, 2009 which was duly replied. At the time of filing of reply to the show cause notice on February 10, 2009, the amount of duty and interest payable thereon along with 25% penalty was deposited much prior to the passing of the impugned order dated July 20, 2009 imposing penalty, of ₹ 2,14,483/- which is equal to the amount of duty of excise determined by the adjudicating authority. - whereas authority relied upon by learned Counsel for respondent-Revenue captioned as Dharamendra Textile Processor’s case (2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT) is not applic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Tariff Act ) and is registered with Central Excise Department for trading excisable goods. The Divisional Preventive Staff conducted an inspection at the premises of appellant on July 30, 2008, during which, a quantity of 20.100 Metric Ton of Silicon Manganese involving Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,14,483/- was found deficit. The said fact was admitted by Darbara Singh, one of the partners of appellant-firm but he could not furnish any plausible explanation for the shortage. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated January 30, 2009 was issued to the appellant for debarring it from passing on the Cenvat credit of ₹ 2,14,483/- for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for brevity the Rules 2002 ) read w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ermined. 5. It has been further stressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that once an amount of duty as well as the interest along with 25% of the duty so determined has been deposited much prior to the date of adjudication order drawn under Section 11(2) of the Act then the question of imposition of penalty equal to the amount of duty determined, does not arise at all. To buttress his contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the pronouncements of the Division Bench of this Court captioned as Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate v. J.R. Fabrics (P). Ltd., 2009 (170) ECR 171 (P H) = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 209 (P H) and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Shipley Hosiery Industres, decided on 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty, the persons who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A, shall also be liable to pay a penalty equal to the duty so determined :- Provided that where such duty as determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11A, and the interest payable thereon under Section 11AB, is paid within thirty days from the date of communication of the order of the Central Excise Officer determining such duty, the amount of penalty liable to be paid by such person under this section be twenty five percent of the duty so determined : Provided further that the benefit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of penalty so determin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te of penalty in case the amount of duty as determined under [Section] 11A(2) of the Act would be 25% when duty as well as interest payable thereon has been paid within 30 days from the date of communication of the order of the determining authority/Officer. 10. Let us now examine the facts of the instant case in the light of the aforesaid provisions and the authorities i.e. J.R. Fabrics (P) Ltd. s case (supra) and Shipley Hosiery Industres s case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 11. It is an undisputed fact and is also evident from the pleadings and documents that Divisional Preventive Staff conducted an inspection of the appellant-firm on July 30, 2008 during which, 20.100 MT quantity of Silicon Manganes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates