Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 852 - AT - Central ExciseExtended period of limitation - Demand of duty with penalty - captive consumption of fly ash bricks - whether the demand raised for extended period by invoking the proviso to Section 11 A (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is legal and correct or otherwise? - Held that:- The appellant failed to declare the production clearances of the goods consumed captively and also not claimed the exemption notification in the ER-1 Return despite there is column in the ER-1 Return for mentioning the exemption notification. Therefore, with this failure, the appellants have suppressed the fact from the department. Accordingly, the extended period for the demand is clearly invokable in the facts of the present case. Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- The penalty under Section 11AC is also legal and correct in respect of the demand pertaining to the extended period - As regards the penalty imposed for the normal period it cannot be said that the appellants have suppressed any fact for the reason that once a show cause notice was issued in subsequent show cause notice of the same issue, the suppression of the fact cannot be alleged - penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed in respect of demand raised in the normal period. Personal penalty imposed on Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah - Held that:- He is only an employee of the company in the matter relates to the removal of the goods within the factory for captive consumption. In these facts, it cannot be said that the employee Shri Rakesh Harish Kumar Shah was involved in any malafide Act - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|