9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial quantity of materials was held to have been clandestinely removed from the factory without payment of duty. Hence the above demand of duty, which was raised under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The said authority also imposed a penalty of Rs. 88,647/- on the party under Section 11AC of the Act. Interest on duty was also ordered to be recovered under Section 11AB of the Act. The amount of Rs. 88,646/- paid by the party on 16-9-1997 was appropriated towards the above demand. The appeal filed by the party against the order of adjudication was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 2. It was on 14-9-1997 that officers of the department visited the factory and retrieved the private r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted in any of the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. On the other hand, the quantitative difference between those records and the statutory records was accepted by a responsible functionary of the company and duty thereon was paid without delay. Neither of the statements was retracted at any point of time. Though the appellants wanted to cross-examine the witness, they did not seriously pursue this request before the adjudicating authority. In other words, the accountability of the materials has ever been accepted by the party. When they came forward to pay duty thereon, they were doing so without protest. By this conduct, they were virtually conceding the factum of goods having been cleared from the factory. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of UOI v. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) = 2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB, wherein it was held that Section 11AC was invocable even where duty was paid before issuance of show-cause notice. 5. In the memo of appeal, the appellants have stated that the show cause notice did not contain any allegation of fraud, suppression, wilful misstatement with intention to evade payment of duty, and the like, as primary pre-requisite for invoking the larger period of limitation. It appears from the records that this plea was raised before the lower appellate authority also. That authority, however, did not consider the same. The original authority also did not touch the limitation issue though, in the reply to show-ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
