TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vered by the proviso to Section 11A (2B). Therefore such demand stand maintained. In respect of this amount there is no suppression of fact, the penalty under Section 11AC of ₹ 4,35,439/- is not legal and proper hence the same is set aside. Personal penalty - Held that: - since the major amount was paid by the appellant suo-moto and considering the nature of the case, it cannot be said that the appellant. Shri S.N. Narkar has any malafide intention, therefore the aiding and abetting the evasion of duty is not proved against the appellant, hence he is not liable for penalty. Appeal allowed in part. - E/900, 901/07 - A/90193-90194/17/EB - Dated:- 18-10-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. - 1992 (57) ELT 396 , the Tribunal decision in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. - 2007 (147) ELT 1065 (Tri.) and of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint-Venture - 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) . Without prejudice, he further submits that at least penalty to the extent of duty of ₹ 4,35,439/- should not be imposed, since the said amount was paid suo-moto by the appellant in July 1999 and disclosed to the department without pointing out by the department and the same was also declared in the RT-12 Return. As regard the personal penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on Shri S.N. Narka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount for ₹ 4,35,439/- and declared in their RT.12 return but for the past period they have neither paid the duty nor declared to the department. Department was unaware of the differential duty liability for the past period, therefore the appellants have suppressed the facts. We do agree, as regard the payment of ₹ 4,35,439/- there is no suppression of fact, however the duty was admittedly paid which is covered by the proviso to Section 11A (2B). Therefore such demand stand maintained. In respect of this amount there is no suppression of fact, the penalty under Section 11AC of ₹ 4,35,439/- is not legal and proper hence the same is set aside. As regard personal penalty, we find that since the major amount was paid by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
