9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing full exemption limit of Rs. One Crore and had cleared goods without payment of duty. We find that they continued to clear the goods without payment of duty from 01.01.2005 to 07.03.2005 (till the visit of the officers). We do not agree with the contention of the learned Consultant that they had time till the end of March 2005 to file the Central Excise Returns and pay Central Excise duty. The said time limit is for a Central Excise Registered Licensee. If the appellant had intimated the Central Excise authorities on crossing the exemption limit, and followed the procedures prescribed in this regard as they themselves had solemnly declared to do, such contentions would have had some merit. We find that they were aware of the exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the same and common Order-in-Appeal of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.09.2008. Hence all the appeals are taken up together. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned Consultant appearing for Appellants No. 1 and 2, at the outset itself submits that they are not contesting the levy of duty. Their grievance is against imposition of penalty under Section 11AC on Appellant No. 1, and a separate penalty of ₹ 25,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Appellant No.2. 4. Briefly stated, the reported facts of the case are that the Appellant No. 1 are engaged in manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 84 of the schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant No. 2 was the person responsible to look after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice dated 05.6.2006 was issued, which was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise confirming the duty liability of ₹ 9,02,563/- along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty of ₹ 9,02,563/- under Section 11AC on Appellant No.1. A penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was also imposed on Appellant No. 2 under Rule 26 of the of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dated 25.09.2008 modified the adjudication order to the extent the penalty imposed under Section 11AC was reduced to 25% of the duty confirmed and upholding the remaining portion of the adjudication order including the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 on Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d without payment of duty. Only due to the visit of the officers to the premises of the appellant on 07.03.2005 it came to light that the appellant had cleared goods valued at ₹ 55,30,414/, over and above the exemption limit of Rs. One Crore, during 31.12.2004 to 06.03.2005. If the officers had not visited, the duty would have escaped. He argued that there was clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty and therefore penalties imposed on Appellant No.1 and 2 are sustainable and appropriate. He also contends that the reduction of penalty to 25% of the duty confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) is legally not correct and submits that the penalty equivalent to duty under Section 11AC imposed by the adjudicating authority shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2004 ₹ 83,13,212/- 6. Value/quantity of the goods estimated to be cleared in the current financial year Below 1 Crore 7 . 8. .. -Exempted from Duty upto clearance value of ₹ 1 Crore in the FY. 9. Process of manufacture/-Cutting, fitting and Assembly. (SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT) (Seal of M/s. Himalaya Engineering Co.) 8. We find that the appellant has violated the terms of the said declaration and had not intimated the Central Excise authorities on crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 1 Crore. They had not obtained the Central Excise registration on reaching full exemption limit of Rs. One Crore and had cleared goods without payment of duty. We find that they continued to clear the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
