Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 517 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTPrinciples of natural justice - Whether the tribunal was justified in deciding the matter without considering the effect of the depositing of duty by the appellant before issuance of the notice? Held that: - Sub-section 2 B of Section 11 A provides that if any excise duty has not been levied or paid, but is subsequently paid by the person concerned before the issuance of the SCN, sub-section 2 B of Section 11 A contemplates that the CEO shall not serve any notice under sub-section 1 of Section 11 A for the purposes of realization of duty. A perusal of the SCN reveals that it is not notice u/s 11 (A) (1) of the Act for the realization of the duty rather it is a notice for the confiscation of the seized goods and for the imposition of the penalty. This is quite distinct from a notice u/s 11 (A) (1) of the Act - The notice dated 24.9.2004 was for the purposes of an order u/s 33 as envisaged by the Section 33 A of the Act. It was not a notice u/s 11 (A) (1), which is said to be prohibited by Section 2 B of Section 11 A. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|