Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2011 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1128 - CESTAT, DELHIPenalty - Benefit of SSI Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000 denied - Held that:- There is a clear mention in the show cause notice and further confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority that Director of the appellants company who was looking after the affairs of the company had clearly stated in his un-retracted statement that the appellants were aware that the goods in question were branded goods of another person and for the same reason, the appellants company was paying royalty to such another person and further that the appellants were aware that they were availing SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000. This apparently discloses that in spite of knowing well that they were availing SSI exemption even though the same was not available to those persons using the brand name of another person for their product yet they continued to clear the goods with the use of the brand name by paying royalty to the another person to whom the brand name belonged to and yet continued to avail the exemption benefit under the said exemption notification till the date of visit by the excise officers to their factory. It was only after the visit by the excise officers to their factory that the appellants paid the duty. However, no interest for delayed payment of duty was paid. Very fact that the appellants awaited the visit of excise officers to their factory to pay the duty in relation to period of about one and half year itself discloses lack of bonafide. There is no explanation coming from the appellants as to what prevented them from clearing those dues prior to 18th October 2000 even though their Director has admitted that they knew that they were using the brand name of another person for their goods and for that purpose they were also paying royalty to such another person. Mere payment of duty, and that too only duty without any interest for delayed payment, cannot by itself be a ground to evade the liability in relation to the penalty. Thus the case is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 11AC and hence the 100% penalty was imposable in the matter.
|