9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out only on the basis of worksheets and data submitted by the appellant themselves. The ingredients which require mandatory imposition of penalty under Section 11AC ibid are not present in this case - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.40994/2013 With 40995/2013 - FINAL ORDER No. 40603-40604/2019 - Dated:- 25-3-2019 - MS. SULEKHA BEEVI, C.S., MEMBER JUDICIAL) And MR. MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri V. Parthasarathy, Consultant For the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturers of automobile parts for supplies to Hyundai Motors India Ltd. (hereinafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at lesser value, however failed to pay differential duty on the rejected goods cleared as scrap as per Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Duty liability on this score, according to department, for the period April 2005 to August 2009 would be ₹ 1,56,570/- On being pointed out, the appellants paid up the tax liabilities as aforesaid. Accordingly, SCN dt. 15.04.2010 was issued to Unit-I of the appellants for these discrepancies proposing a total duty liability of ₹ 43,70,459/- with interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On adjudication, the demand along with interest was confirmed and amounts already paid towards demand and interest was appropriated by the adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants immediately after being pointed out by the department officers. The said duty liabilities have arisen out of interpretational issues, however the appellants themselves paid up the duty liability without demur. Discernably, in these cases, therefore, there was indeed a case for waiver of SCN under provisions of Section 11A (2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since the duty liabilities were paid up immediately after being pointed out along with interest. Be that as it may be, there also cannot be any accusation that there was suppression of facts or misstatement or fraud or intention to evade payment of duty liability. It is also not disputed that ER-3 returns were being also filed regularly by the appellants. In fact, the demands propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
