9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aged in the manufacture of Ready Mix Concrete falling under Chapter Heading 3824.50.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing the benefit of Notification No.1/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 as amended paying duty at the rate of 2% ad velorem for demand of excess duty without availing the CENVAT credit. On gathering intelligence that the said unit manufactured and cleared Ready Mix Concrete without payment of Central Excise duty and had not filed statutory returns, the Preventive Officers of the erstwhile Bangalore IV Commissionerate visited the manufacturing unit. It was noticed that the appellant has taken Central Excise Registration during June 2013 and manufactured and cleared Ready Mix Concrete on payment of Central Excise duty for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the appellant under the provisions of Section 11A(4) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Ready Mix concrete is chargeable to Central Excise duty under Chapter heading 3824.50.10 with a duty of 6% with CENVAT and at the rate of 2% without CENVAT. Though the appellant was registered under Central Excise during June 2013 they have not filed the statutory returns (ER-8) from October 2013 onwards within the stipulated time. 2.2 On these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued proposing to demand Central Excise duty of Rs. 20,31,243/- for the period October 2013 to September 2015 under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and appropriation of an amount of Rs. 8,43,829/- already paid along with penalty in terms of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncial difficulties he was unable to run the unit and the same was rented from September 2015 onwards to M/s. Cemax Concrete who in turn sublet the plant to M/s. Quick Mix Concrete with the concurrence of the land owners and the same was intimated to the Department. He further submitted that the findings of the Commissioner (A) that Shri M. A. Mathew, Partner of the firm has not made a mandatory pre-deposit is not tenable because the appellant had already paid Rs. 8,43,829/- during the course of investigation which is sufficient to take care of mandatory pre-deposit in both the appeals. He further submitted that imposition of equal penalty on the firm and also on the partner Shri M. A. Mathew under Rule 26 is not warranted and liable to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the course of investigation which has been appropriated in the impugned order. Further, I find that original authority has imposed equal penalty of Rs. 20,31,243/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the firm and also imposed equal penalty on Partner Shri M. A. Mathew under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which according to me is on a very higher side because once the equal penalty has been imposed on the firm, the imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,31,243/- on the Partner is not justified and therefore, I reduce the penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on Shri M. A. Mathew, Partner of the firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. As far as other demands on the firm are concerned, I do not fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
