TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipeline to M/s. Ispat Profiles India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IPIL). The appellant s factory is set up in the premises of IPIL. A show cause dated 5-3-97 was issued to the appellant demanding Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 27,76,542.89 for the period from 1-3-94 to 30-11-96 on the ground that the value charged by them from M/s. IPIL was less to the extent of free of supply of water and power. It was further alleged that they were charging Rs. 1.50 per NM3 less from M/s. IPIL in comparison to other buyers in the course of wholesale trade. According to the Revenue the appellant deliberately, knowingly and intentionally did not disclose the fact that M/s. IPIL had supplied electricity and industrial grade water free of cost. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice, even though according to the assessee a part of the demand was barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, the appellant would contend that there is no justification in imposing the penalty. It was also contended that the provisions of Sections 11AC and 11AB had not been brought into force during the entire period of demand. Therefore, there could be no demand of penalty or interest under the above provisions. 3. The Commissioner was not inclined to accept the above contention raised by the appellant. He took the view that the fact that M/s. IPIL had been supplying power and water free of cost, has not been brought to the notice of the department by the assessee at any point of time. There was no occasion for the officers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 11AC was not applicable the provisions of Rule 173Q would be applicable during the major portion of the period of demand. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that whenever duty is paid before the show cause notice is issued, there would be no liability to pay penalty. If the assessee contravenes any of the provisions of the Rules with intent to evade payment of duty, liability to pay penalty is mandatory under Rule 173Q as was decided by the Supreme Court in Junjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India - 1999 (112) 772 (S.C.). Since there is no discussion on the facts of the case in Hemant Plastics Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Vadodara, it is not known whether there was any such contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
