Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 92 - CESTAT NEW DELHIPenalty u/s 11 AC sub-section (1) (a) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - malafide intent present or not - clearance of semi-finished fibre to group units on payment of duty - Held that:- The admitted fact of the present case is that the appellant was clearing its goods after making payment of duty. It is after the Board’s Circular dated 13th February, 2003, which came to the notice of the appellant that they prayed vide their own request dated 18th January, 2013, to the Department for the provisional assessment order qua the duty to have been paid by them on their semi-finished fibre as being cleared by them to their group units. It is after the said request that the Department demanded details from the appellants since the year 2008-09 till the year 2012-13 - It is also very much apparent and admitted that prior the impugned show cause notice could have been issued, the appellants deposited the differential duty of ₹ 22,40,011/- for the period w.e.f. 2009-10 to 2012-13 (no clearances in the year 2008-09) alongwith the interest of ₹ 2,84,502/- for the period 2011-12 and 2012-13. It becomes absolutely clear that the facts came to the notice of the Department on the request of the appellant itself and that the appellant was paying duty as per its own calculation. Thus, in essence the conduct of the appellant amounts to offering its activities to assessment. The conduct, therefore is opined bonafide - The reasoning given by the appellant in their defence has also been held logical. The findings to my opinion suffer no infirmity in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the order to that extent is therefore, upheld. Reduced penalty - Held that:- The duty has been already paid by the appellant for both these years as well. He is liable to pay interest only if there is any differential amount of duty yet to be paid by the appellant for both these years. There is neither such evidence nor any finding in this respect. The interest for the subsequent years has already stands deposited by the appellant alongwith the differential amount of duty paid - the appellant having no malafide intention to evasion of duty, this is a fit case to not to be covered under the proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|