9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25 or not? - Held that:- The appellant, having cleared the goods without payment of duty in the manner specified and by concealing the facts from Central Excise authorities, had rendered the goods liable to confiscation and themselves liable to be penalised under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that ingredients of section 11AC, having thus been reasonably invoked, cannot be faulted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y August 2011 and the interest thereon by September 2011. 2. Under rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, as prevailing then, appellant was deprived of the privilege of consolidated monthly payment and was required to discharge duty liabilities on each consignment upon clearance. It would appear that the appellant had continued to make use of the privilege of monthly payment of duties despite t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant; and that the failure to confiscate the goods under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 barred the recourse to consequent penalty. 4. None appeared for the appellant. Heard Learned Authorised Representative who reiterated the contents of the impugned order. 5. That the appellant had contravened the provisions of rule 8 by clearing goods without payment of duty on each cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncealing the facts from Central Excise authorities, had rendered the goods liable to confiscation and themselves liable to be penalised under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that ingredients of section 11AC, having thus been reasonably invoked, cannot be faulted. The plea that confiscation is a necessary pre-requisite is not backed by the provisions of either section 11AC of Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
