9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , A.R. ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU, is engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h were lying in stock as on 16.05.2008 at the time of exit from 100% EOU scheme. The appellant deposited the duty along with interest on those goods by availing the benefit of deprecation. The Department initiated Show Cause Proceedings against the appellant, seeking confirmation of the duty demand, which was not deposited by the appellant. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 14.09.2010 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the disputed goods were procured indigenously under CT-3 certificate, but due to oversight, the appellant did not declare the stock of goods available in the factory, while calculating the duty liability and issuance of no due certificate. She further submitted that upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n mandates that where duty of Excise has not been levied or paid or has not been short levied or short paid by reasons of fraud, conclusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts, the person liable to pay duty as determine under sub-section (2) of Section 11 A, shall also be liable to pay penalty equal to the duty so determined. 7. Perusal of the provisions of Section 11 AC ibid reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
