9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is justified - The imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q is not proper. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/305/2009 - FO/75176/2018 - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms. Satabdi Chatterjee Shri Rishi Raju, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various Iron and Steel items classifiable under different chapters of CETA, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dated 18.09.2001 was issued proposing demand of duty of ₹ 19,60,963.00. The appellant paid duty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be imposed. It is submitted that there is no findings by the Adjudicating authority with respect to the intention of the assessee to evade payment of duty. It is also submitted that it is case of interpretation of provisions of law in so far as eligibility of benefit of Exemption Notification No. 65/95. It is also submitted that penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Rule cannot be imposed without any findings thereon. The Learned Counsel referred to various Case Laws. It is submitted that the appellant had already paid 25% of amount of duty as penalty. I find that the Show Cause Notice proposed demand of duty of ₹ 19,60,963.00 in respect of 711.49 MT of goods cleared without payment of duty for captive consumption. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Show Cause Notice. So, the imposition of penalty is warranted. The appellant had already paid 25% of duty as penalty. In my considered view, the goods are cleared without payment of duty, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is justified. As such, the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q is not proper. However, the appellant had already paid penalties of 25% of duty as per proviso to Section 11AC of the Act, 1944. The Learned Counsel cited several case laws which are not applicable in the present case as the appellant cleared the goods without payment of duty. 5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Order is modified to the extent that the penalty under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Rule is set aside. The demand o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
