9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. - APPEAL No. E/2481/2011-EX[DB] - A/72219/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 11-9-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Appellant Absent for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with that part of the impugned order of Commissioner, vide which while confirming the demand of duty to the tune of ₹ 52,18,628/- and while imposing penalty of ₹ 75,000/- on the party under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, no penalty was imposed under Section 11AC, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. After hearing the learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue and after going through the impugned order, we n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention to evade payment of duty. There is no evidence to show that by not paying duty they had been unduly benefited inasmuch as they were entitled to receive only the job charges irrespective of whether duty on the goods in question was payable or not. The documents available on record also indicate that they did not have their own stand on the matter and depended on the stand of M/s Techno Electronics Ltd. This is the reason that when liability of duty was conveyed by the Range, they consulted M/s Techno Electronics Ltd. and when M/s Techno Electronics Ltd. released the amount, they paid the same towards the liability of duty and interest. Hence, I agree that non-payment of duty immediately on manufacture was bona fide mistake on their p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication, to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal granting him the relief of non-payment of penalty. In the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur vs. Andhra Cements Ltd. 2007 (216) E.L.T. 362 (A.P.), the Hon ble Court while deciding the issue regarding imposition of penalty under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC, observed that evasion of payment of duty is not sufficient to impose penalty on a producer or manufacturer. There should be an element of intention to evade payment of duty. Unless the Authorities come to the definite conclusion that there was an intention to evade the payment of duty, a penalty cannot be imposed . Further, in the case of M/s Castrol India Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigarh [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
