9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the clearances under exemption Notification No.10/97. As per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appropriate duty to be paid is 10.2% on the assessable value on the clearances made under Notification No.10/97. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents for differential duty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and Rs. 48,894/- and Education Cess of Rs. 978/- along with interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 49,872/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is seen that the duty amount had already been paid by the respondents well before the issue of show cause notice. Interest had also been paid. They had stated before the Commissioner (A) that out of ignorance they paid only 8% duty. There was no intent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of interest also the assessee had submitted that interest amounting to Rs. 2,390/-, on the differential amount due, has been paid vide entry No. 42 dated 10-10-2005 in PLA. The Adjudicating Authority in his findings in the Order-in-Original, has explained that on verification of the PLA abstract for the month of October 2005, found that the entry No. 42 relates to credit taken on the basis of a challan and the entry is not related to debit entry for payment of interest by the assessee. Further, on scrutiny of the PLA abstract for the month of March 2006, it was found no entries towards interest payment were made nor any evidence was produced by the assessee for payment of interest subsequently till the time of adjudication. On the contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Although in the said case, penalty was levied under Sec.11AC of the Central Excise Act, Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is similar provision for imposition of penalty. Therefore the ratio of the case law is squarely applicable in the instant case. In this particular case, as has been proven above, there have been repeated misstatements by the assessee in an attempt to mislead the department. Such acts should be met with penal action. (4) On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the non-payment of duty has arisen at the time of budgetary changes. There is no finding in the impugned order that such non-payment was deliberate with an intention to evade Central Excise duty. The respondent had already discharge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
