2015 (3) TMI 1093

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... presentative (DR) For the Respondent : Shri Rupendra Singh, Advocate ORDER Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 15/Ldh/2005 dated 08/04/05 had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 11,27,06,058/- against the respondent company in respect of period from March 1999 to April 2002 by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 alon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edit admissible to the respondent would be much lower;  (b) since the duty demand confirmed is Rs. 11,27,06,058/- the penalty of equal amount should have been imposed under Section 11AC and not of the difference between the duty confirmed and the Cenvat credit admissible ; and  (c) Commissioners decision not to impose penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on Shr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The Commissioner by the impugned order by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 11,27,06,058/- against the respondent alongwith interest on it under Section 11AB and has imposed penalty of Rs. 2,59,15,371/- on the respondent under Section 11AC. The Commis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X