2018 (1) TMI 251

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nalty equivalent to the amount evaded from 28.09.1996 onwards is upheld under Section 11AC - the option to pay 25% duty is hereby extended to the appellants, subject to the conditions of the section. Appeal allowed in part.
Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri P.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by Patil Prestress Concrete Works against confirmation of demand of interest, imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that they are involved in manufacture and supply of electric poles to MSEB, a government organisation. During the year 1992-93 to 1996-97 the appellants were supplying the electric pol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Aggrieved by the said order, appellants are before the Tribunal. 3. Ld. Counsel has argued that the show-cause notice does not pin point the sub-clause of Rule 173Q, under which penalty was sought to be imposed and therefore in terms of the decision of the Apex court in the case of Amrit Foods - 2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC) imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. He further argued that Section 11AC came into effect from 28.09.1996 and therefore penalty for the period prior to said date, cannot be sustained in view of the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in Lal Mining Engg. Works - 2007 (215) ELT 167 (SC). He further argued that penalty imposed in the impugned order is not apportioned between the penalty imposed under Rule 173Q and that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t between 173Q and Section 11AC. The impugned order clearly specified for period prior to 27.09.1996 penalty would be imposed under Section 173Q and for the period after 28.09.1996 penalty would be imposed under Section 11AC. Both the sections provide for penalty equal to the duty evaded, therefore there is clear apportionment of section 173Q and 11AC. In these circumstances, penalty equivalent to the amount evaded from 28.09.1996 onwards is upheld under Section 11AC. 8. The appellants have further cited the option to pay 25% penalty was not extended to the appellants. They have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Chandra Metal Enterprises - 2016 (331) ELT 440 (All.) In view of the said decision of the Hon& .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X