9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ountry depot surcharge" at the rate of ₹ 1600/- per K.L.; that after amendment of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act with effect from 27.9.1996, they have been paying duty on the "upcountry depot surcharge"; that, however, under impression that M/s. I.O.C., Lubefield is also a subsidiary of M/s Indian Oil Corporation, they did not consider I.O.C. Lubefield as an upcountry Depot and did not include ₹ 1600/- per K.L. in the assessable value; that when IOC Lubefield submitted their invoice wise particulars for the account purpose, they found that IOC Lubefield was charging the said surcharge in their invoices; that as and when it came to the knowledge, they immediately prepared the reconciliation statement and paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1996 (iii) CCE, Chennai v. Ashok Leyland 2002 (48) RLT 845 (CEGAT) (iv) Eicher Demm v. CCE, Chandigarh 2001 (47) RLT 275(CEGAT) 3. Countering the arguments, Shri A.K. Mondal, ld. D.R., submitted that duty amounting to ₹ 44, 36,158.90 had been short paid by the Appellants in respect of excisable goods cleared by them during the period from 25.10.1996 to 31.8.1998; that enquiry revealed that I.O.C Lubefield despatched lubricating oil/preparations to different depots of M/s I.O.C by adding upcountry depot surcharge; that knowing fully well about the charging of surcharge extra, they had suppressed the material fact from the Department with the intent to evade payment of duty; that accordingly provisions of Section 11AC of the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the differential duty. The Appellants had not disclosed the fact of not including the upcountry depot surcharge in respect of supplies made to M/s IOC Lubefield to the Department and as such the same was suppressed from the Department. In view of this, the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act are invokable and penalty is imposable on the Appellants. The decisions relied upon by the ld. Advocate are not applicable as facts are different. In DCW Ltd., penalty was held to be not imposable for a mere procedural lapse in taking modvat credit and in absence of intention to evade duty. In the present matter, there is no procedural lapse as appropriate duty of Excise was not paid before the clearance of goods. Similarly, in Singh T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
