9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er and the actual duty liability under Section 11A of the Act comes to ₹ 5,70,113/- and not ₹ 6,99,041/- because the amount of ₹ 1,28,928/- was not duty assessed under Section 11A but the amount liable to be collected under Section 11D of the Act. In view of this legal position, I reduce the penalty to the extent of ₹ 5,70,113/- from ₹ 6,99,041/-. Penalty on Managing Director - Held that: - As far as penalty on the Managing Director is concerned, since equal penalty has been imposed on the company, therefore I do not think it proper to impose the penalty on the Managing Director as the Department has not brought any material to show that Managing Director was directly responsible for non-payment of duty - pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars 2002-03 2003-04, the appellants have manufactured and cleared excisable goods in excess of the full exemption limit of rupees one hundred lakh valued by ₹ 7,90,173/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Three only) ₹ 21,72,488/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Eight only) in respect of which no duty of excise amounting to ₹ 1,26,428/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Eight only) ₹ 3,47,598/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Eight only) respectively has been levied/paid. It was also observed that while opting out of the cenvat scheme at the end of the financial year 2005-06 in favour of fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment account amounts collected as CED during the FY 2006-07, the appellants have paid a total amount of ₹ 6,85,072/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand and Seventy Two only) (vide TR-6 Challans bearing No. 1 2 dated 24.03.2007) out of a total payable amount of ₹ 6,99,041/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand and Forty One only) (balance amount yet to be paid is ₹ 13,969/-). They have also paid an amount of ₹ 4,240/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred and Forty only) as interest towards amount paid as required under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944. On these allegations a show-cause notice was issued to the company and its Managing Director and after following the due process of law, the original autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 20.11.2006 along with interest. He further submitted that the appellant submitted the records such as audited Balance Sheet for the previous year which revealed that they have not paid duty for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 in spite of crossing the exemption limit of ₹ 1 crore. He also submitted that the differential duty of ₹ 4,74,026/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand and Twenty Six only) was immediately paid by the appellant. He further submitted that the Department pointed out that an amount of ₹ 96,087/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand and Eighty Seven only) being the proportionate cenvat credit in respect of stock of inputs, semi finished goods and finished goods while opting for exemption for the year 2006-07 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 4,74,026/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand and Twenty Six only) was paid only when the audit took place and the short paid was detected by the Department. He also submitted that the amount of ₹ 96,087/- (Rupees Ninety Six Thousand and Eighty Seven only) which was proportionate cenvat credit in respect of stock of inputs, semi finished goods and finished goods was also paid subsequently and it was not reversed when the appellant opted for exemption for the year 2006-07. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) CC, Mangalore Vs. Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 378 (Kar.) b) CCE Cus., Surat-l Vs. P.S. Singhvi - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 16 (Guj.) 6. After consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kh Twenty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Eight only) was not duty assessed under Section 11A but the amount liable to be collected under Section 11D of the Act. In view of this legal position, I reduce the penalty to the extent of ₹ 5,70,113/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Thousand One Hundred and Thirteen only) from ₹ 6,99,041/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand and Forty One only). As far as penalty on the Managing Director is concerned, since equal penalty has been imposed on the company, therefore I do not think it proper to impose the penalty on the Managing Director as the Department has not brought any material to show that Managing Director was directly responsible for non-payment of duty. Therefore, I drop the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
