Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 34 - HC - Central ExciseWhether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of payment of only 25% of the penalty? - Held that: - the appellant not having complied with the conditions precedent of the first proviso, namely, the payment of the duty and interest determined under section 11A(2) and Section 11AB, respectively, within 30 days of the communication of the order of the adjudicating authority. The first Proviso not having been complied with, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the second Proviso. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the reduced duty - decided against appellant. Whether an assessee is liable to pay penalty only to the extent of the balance unpaid amount of the duty determined under section 11A(2) of the Act? - Held that: - The injustice caused by a wrong determination is righted by the third proviso under which the reduced duty determined to be payable is to be taken into account for the purpose of section 11AC which would also include the first proviso. Fairness, therefore, is established. No prejudice, therefore, is caused to the assessee. If the assessee wishes to speculate as to the outcome of the further proceedings, he must do so at his own risk - the concession granted under the first proviso to section 11AC is to a person who has been guilty of fraud, collusion, etc. - we are not inclined to take the view in favour of the assessee in a case under section 11AC for it involves an assessee who has been found guilty of fraud, collusion, etc. - decided against appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|