9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (5) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Lauls Ltd. the penalty of Rs. 29,01,407/- under Rule 173Q(1) read with the provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are manufacturer of Ingots and articles of Iron and Steel. The appellants manufactured specific goods for supply to the Indian Railways. The Department got information that the appellant was raising escalation bills in which excise duty on the goods supplied was being collected but such duty collected was not being deposited in the Government account. The officers visited the factory on 20-1-97. The physical verification of the stock of goods was undertaken in the factory premises. 3,611 pieces of E.R. Clips, weighing 3.395 mt. valued at Rs. 90,63 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntained a price variation clause. The appellant received payment initially on the basis of G.P.I/invoices. Subsequently, the appellant raised bills on account of price variation clause, the appellant was required to intimate to the Department the raising of bills on account of price variation clause but the appellant did not do. Scrutiny of the documents further shows that the appellant had collected a sum of Rs. 28,87,812/- as Central Excise Duty. Accordingly, a SCN was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why a sum of Rs. 28,87,812/- collected as excise duty from the Railways and voluntarily debited by them should not be confirmed under Section 11A, why an amount of Rs. 13,595/- debited in R.G. 23A Part II should not be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He submitted that the ld. Commissioner in his order has no doubt mentioned that penalty is imposed under the provisions of Rule 173Q(1) read with the provision of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act. He submitted that the amount of penalty will clarify that this amount is exactly equal to the amount of duty confirmed in the order. He submitted that thus this amount is actually the amount of penalty imposed under Section 11AC. He submitted that there is no separate amount indicated under Rule 173Q(1) though this rule has been invoked. He submitted that in the absence of apportionment of the amount, the amount of penalty is actually under Section 11AC. He submitted that the ld. Commissioner in his order has correctly observed that Section 11D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings vis-à-vis the relevant Section of the Act. We find that a consolidated penalty said to be under Rule 173Q(1) read with Section 11AC has been imposed. What part of it is imposed under Section 11AC and what amount in under Rule 173Q(1) is not clear from the order. Apportionment cannot be done in appeal. We also note that quantum of penalty is equal to the total amount of duty confirmed against the appellant. We also note that the period of demand in the instant case is before the date of introduction of Section 11AC in the statutes. The Tribunal has been consistently holding that only such demand as accrued after the introduction of Section 11AC shall be covered by the penal provisions of Section 11AC. In the instant case the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
