2017 (1) TMI 289

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e visit of the factory by the officer. Therefore, it is established that there is a suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. In such case the demand was correctly confirmed under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. Consequently, the equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC is also correct. As regards interest, since the appellant has failed to reverse the credit at the time of clearance of goods under exemption but the same was reversed belatedly after almost 3-4 years, interest is inevitably chargeable under Section 11AB of the Act, from the date of availment of credit till the date of reversal. Demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected therefore the appellant is before me challenging the imposition of penalty and demand of interest. 2. Shri R.V. Shetty, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the major portion of the duty was paid before the issuance of show cause notice and small amount was paid after the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Since they are not contesting the duty demand the penalty should be waived. 3. Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that this is a clear case of suppression of fact as during the period 2004-2007 the appellant was knowingly clearing the goods unde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellant. In such case the demand was correctly confirmed under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. Consequently, the equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC is also correct. This has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processor 2008 (231) ELT 3(S.C.). As regard the submission of the appellant regarding interest since the appellant has failed to reverse the credit at the time of clearance of goods under exemption but the same was reversed belatedly after almost 3-4 years, interest is inevitably chargeable under Section 11AB of the Act, from the date of availment of credit till the date of reversal. As per my above discussion, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X