9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 15(2) is not justified. Hence, I set aside the penalty by setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/ 2344/2012-SM - Final Order No. 21349 / 2016 - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri Raghavendra B. Henjer, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.5.2012 whereby the Commissioner (A) has confirmed the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tilled ge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roduced by them when the audit party directed them to do so and when the audit party informed them about the ineligibility of the credit on input received short, they reversed the entire amount along with interest. He also submitted that invocation of Section 11AC will not arise as there is no intention to evade any payment of duty and it is a genuine mistake of the appellant which was rectified immediately. He also submitted that when the duty along with interest is paid before the issue of show-cause notice, then the Department should not issue show-cause notice as per Section 11A(2B). He also submitted that it is a settled law that when there is no intention to evade duty, then there is no justification to impose any penalty much less un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) to this effect are not challenged. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are as under: 5. As regards the imposition of penalty ofRs.4,03,183/- I find that just because appellants are registered since long and are one of the highest revenue payers, does not prove the intent to evade duty. On the contrary being one of the highest revenue payers and taking into consideration the fact that on being pointed out the appellants having immediately paid duty along with interest shows that they had no intention of evading duty. The Department has also not alleged any suppression. 6.1 Similarly in ISMT Ltd. (surpa) on identical facts, this Tribunal in para 8 (b) has observed as under: 8(b) With regard to the penalties, I f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
