2019 (11) TMI 672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e fraud, collusion or any mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty - In the facts of the present case, in the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority the condition precedent for invoking the provisions of section 11AC of the Act is not satisfied. Appeal dismissed. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 709 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 17-10-2019 - JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI AND JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN, JJ. For The Appellant (s) : MR VIRAL K SHAH (5210) For The Opponent (s) : None ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTIC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority and penalty of ₹ 60,00,000/- was also imposed under rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal seeking imposition of penalty of equal amount of duty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). By the impugned order, the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority and has dismissed the appeal. 3. Mr. Viral Shah, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the mandatory penalty under section 11AC is not imposable on the respondent. It was submitted that the respondent ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m the date of removal from the factory, the said lapse stood condoned/regularised, inasmuch as, post facto permission to dispose of the goods covered thereunder was given to the unit. The adjudicating authority has given a categorical finding that there was no fraud, collusion or any mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of the respondent with intent to evade payment of central excise duty and consequently, no penalty under section 11AC of the Act was warranted. The adjudicating authority has, accordingly, levied penalty under rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. The Tribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the adjudicating authority and has accordingly upheld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X