9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is upheld - however, the appellants are eligible to discharge 25% of the penalty on such amount, on fulfillment of the conditions laid down under the said provisions. In case of demand confirmed against notices issued periodically for normal period, we are of the opinion that a consolidated penalty of ₹ 1.00 lakh would meet the ends of justice. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. E/1274 to 1307/2010 - A/87371-87404/2018 - Dated:- 6-9-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. S. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate for Appellant Shri Deepak S. Chavan, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, they have discharged duty on the transaction value of similar goods directly sold from the factory. Learned Advocate submits that in the present appeals, they do not dispute the liability of differential duty arose due to incorrect determination of assessable value of stock transferred goods to depot, however, they dispute the imposition of penalty of equivalent to the differential duty. He submits that there has been no suppression of facts and hence penalty of equivalent amount imposed in case of differential duty demanded and confirmed for the period 2004-05 and December, 2007 invoking the extended period of limitation, is unsustainable in law. Further, he submits that in all other cases, the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot, duty was required to be paid by determining the assessable value adopting Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. But, their grievance is that penalty equivalent to the differential duty cannot be imposed as they have discharged duty on the goods cleared from the factory to the depot. We find that as far as confirmation of demands invoking extended period of limitation are concerned, both the authorities below are right in their approach inasmuch as the fact of sale of the excisable goods at a higher price from the depots was not communicated to the department nor the related data was submitted to the department from time to time along with their liability to discharge the differential duty. Thus, in our view imposition of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
