9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk Loan from the Indian Bank, Durgapur Brach, which was duly acknowledged by the Bank. Admittedly, the appellant maintained parallel Invoice so the onus lies with the assessee to establish that the second set of Invoice was not used for clearance. It cannot be shifted on the department by stating that the Officers had not enquired the matter - the appellant paid the duty before issuance of the SCN partly. So, they are entitled to avail the option to pay penalty of 25% of duty as per proviso to Section 11AC of the CEA 1944. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - MA(AE)-75073/18 & Ex.Appeal No.71/12 - ORDER NO.M/O/75056/F/O/75216/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Hon ble Judicial Member Shri D.Majumdar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit and duty. 5. By the impugned Order the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand of Modvat Credit of ₹ 56,000.00 and demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 1,20,839.00 on the value of purchased items. It has been held that the appellant is required to pay Central Excise duty of ₹ 16,99,881.00 along with interest and they have already deposited an amount of ₹ 12,95,000.00 and they are required to pay the balance amount of ₹ 4,04,881.00 with interest on the confirmed demand. It has also reduced the amount of penalty to ₹ 16,99,881.00. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal. 6. The appellant also filed an application for additional evidence. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have not enquired from the buyers, Purchase Orders, Transporters etc. It is also stated that the Proprietor of the appellant firm was unwell and in order to buy peace of mind, they deposited ₹ 12,95,000.00 and the same cannot be considered as acceptance of guilt on the part of the assessee. 11. I am unable to accept the contents of the Miscellaneous Application for the reasons that the appellant paid the amount of ₹ 12,95,000.00 in 2003 and accepted the demand of duty partly before the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no whisper of the acceptance of the duty before the Commissioner (Appeals) in their Miscellaneous Application. In any event, the appellant paid the duty in 2003 and had not disputed at any point of time prio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee s name where no goods were supplied and the said Invoice was used for the purpose of managing Bank Loan from the Indian Bank, Durgapur Brach, which was duly acknowledged by the Bank. It is submitted that there was no movement of goods against the parallel Invoice and the consignee did not receive such goods and the Central Excise Officers failed to enquire at the consignees end. 12. It is seen from the impugned Order, that Shri A. N. Basu Choudhury, Proprietor of the appellant concern in his statement dated 16.03.2005 accepted the irregularity. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that as per Central Excise Rules, there is no authority to maintain two sets of Invoices having same Serial No. and therefore the demand confirmed by the low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
