9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have mis-declared and cleared the goods clandestinely. Therefore, the appellant has clearly contravened the condition stipulated under the Notification No. 39/2001- CE. Therefore the re credit of the duty paid subsequently is not admissible to the appellant. The appellants plea that there is no suppression of fact in the present case is of no help to them - there is clear contravention with malafide intention of Notification No 39/2001-CE. Therefore the appellant is not entitled for re- credit of the amount of duty paid in respect of goods clandestinely removed. Appeal dismissed. - Excise Appeal No. 11892 of 2016 - A/12559/2021 - Dated:- 1-12-2021 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under section 11 AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 .It was also proposed to impose penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 and Central Excise Act,1944. The Appellant denied the charge regarding their intention to evade the payment of duty with suppression of fact. They also submitted before the Adjudicating Authority that the Show Cause notice is time barred. Though the personal hearing was fixed on 9 dates but no one appeared during personal hearing. The charges of the Show Cause Notice has been confirmed vide order in original dated 20.01.2015 whereby the re- credit was disallowed and imposed penalty of equal amount and demanded the interest, penalty of ₹ 5,000/- was also im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y operating under separate scheme i.e. Area Based Exemption Benefit Scheme under Notification No 39/2001-CE dated 31.07.2001. This finding is contradictory to the finding recorded by him at para 6.3 in OIO under which he has recorded that I hold that the Noticee has wrongly availed re-credit of ₹ 29,00,504/- under the said notification and the same is required to be recovered under section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Notification No. 39/2001- CE dated 31.07.2001. Therefore, The Adjudicating Authority has not recorded the finding properly in the plea of time limit. 3. Shri R.K Bhashkar, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excise duty. Though the appellant subsequently paid duty but at time of clearance they have mis-declared and cleared the goods clandestinely. Therefore, the appellant has clearly contravened the condition stipulated under the Notification No. 39/2001- CE. Therefore the re credit of the duty paid subsequently is not admissible to the appellant. In respect of nonpayment of duty at the time of clearance, the separate proceeding was initiated by the department by issuing the SCN wherein the suppression of fact, fraud etc was alleged. The said SCN has been decided against which the appellant had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the remand order of the Adjudicating Authority. Against the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
