9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Act, 1944, for settlement of proceedings initiated against them vide Show Cause Notice, dated 9-8-2005, issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, alleging that during the period August 2004 to February 2005, the applicant had cleared a quantity of 5182.910 MTs of CTD Bars without payment of duty and without declaring the same in their statutory monthly returns. The Notice demands differential duty of Rs. 1,90,73,109/- towards Excise Duty and Rs. 3,81,462/- towards Education Cess, payable on 5182.910 MTs of clandestinely removed steel. Apart from proposal to impose penalty, demand of interest under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and to appropriate an amount of Rs. 1.50 cror ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted by S/Shri G. Shivadass, and A.S. Monnappa, Advocates; T. Govindappa, Commercial Officer and M.H. Sait, General Manager. The Revenue was represented by Shri Giridharan, Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore-I Commissionerate. 5. The Advocate submitted that since the period involved is admittedly between August 2004 and February 2005, the correct rate of duty applicable was 12 per cent adv., in view of entry No. 172A in respect of goods falling under Chapter 72, as per Notification No. 6/2002-CEX, dated 1-3-2002, as amended by subsequent notifications. On the other hand, the revenue's contention has been that the correct rate of duty applicable in this case was 16 per cent adv., prevalent on the date of issue of the Show Cause Notice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough records of the case. The Bench observes that while the duty demand is Rs. 1,94,54,571/-, the applicant has remitted an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- between April 2005, and June 2005, before the issue of Show Cause Notice, on 9-8-2005. The main plank of the applicant's argument is that the department had applied a higher rate of 16 per cent adv. in the Show Cause Notice for calculation of duty instead of 12 per cent adv. under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, and that the cum-duty benefit was not granted to the applicant while quantifying the demand in the Show Cause Notice. The Bench observes that the respondent-Commissioner is relying on Board's Circular No. 261/95/96-CX, dated 6-11-1996. However, the Bench observes that i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the applicant. 8. As regards immunities from penalty and prosecution for the applicant as well as co-applicants, the Bench is favourably inclined to consider the same. However, with regard to waiver of interest, the Bench observes that for the clandestine removals made during the period August 2004 and February 2005, the applicant made a payment of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- towards duty evasion detected, in instalments during the period April 2005, and June 2005. For waiver of interest, the applicant relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Mangalore v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, 2004 (165) E.L.T. 508 (Kar). However, the facts are clearly distinguishable as this case relates to clandestine remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
