9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 21-8-2008 - Justice S.N. Jha, President Shri R.K. Verma, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order].- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order-in-Appeal of Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 7-7-2006 setting aside the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28-2-2006. By the said order, the Assistant Commissioner had confirmed duty demand of Rs. 2,38,625/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest thereon under Section 11AB of the Act and also imposed penalty equal to duty with option to deposit reduced penalty @ 25% as per proviso to the Section 11AC of the Act. 2. The respondent, M/s. Goetze (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of hearing, learned DR submitted that though there is no such requirement in the Rules, in terms of the trade notice in the concerned Commissionerate, the respondent was further required to obtain permission from the competent authority; in any case, they were supposed to inform the authorities about the receipt of goods. It was submitted that ordinarily where the same goods are re-cleared after carrying out repairs etc., simple non-observance of Rule 16 may not result in loss of revenue and it may only be a case of contravention of the rule, but there is no evidence to show that the goods re-cleared were the same goods which were received earlier. There could be chances of clandestine removal of goods, it was pointed out. 4. Learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal of goods on the pretext of reconditioning, repairs etc. Needless to say, that if the goods are subjected to the processes which would amount to manufacture, the manufacturer is required to pay duty by reversing the Cenvat credit taken by them on receipt of the goods earlier. Indeed, where the law prescribes the procedure for doing something, it must be done in that manner. Rule 25(1)(d) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002/2004 provides for imposition of penalty in cases of contravention of any provision of the rules or the notification issued thereunder, and therefore for contravention of Rule 16, the respondent could be saddled with penalty. But the liability to penalty under clause (d) is qualified by the words "with intent to evade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
