9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rials was confirmed against the appellant with interest as applicable and penalty of Rs. 80,000/- was also imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. A penalty of Rs. 80,000/- was also imposed on the authorized signatory of the firm. On an appeal filed by the appellant before this Tribunal, the penalty on the appellant firm was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- and penalty on the authorized signatory, already set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), was not disturbed. This order of the Tribunal was passed on 30-11-2007 vide order No. A/3039/WZB/AHD/2007 dated 30-11-2007. Department had also filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking enhancement of penalty, which stands reduced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 80,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, learned SDR submits that the order dated 18-8-2008 had rejected the appeal since the matter had already been decided by the Tribunal earlier. It is his submission that by not filing appeal against this order, the department's right for enhancement of penalty is not jeopardized. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. Even though the order of the Tribunal dated 18-8-2008 is not a detailed one, the fact remains that the issue before the Tribunal was only of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. In view of the fact that department's appeal sought enhancement of penalty whereas appellant had challenged duty as well as penalty and after considering of the facts, duty demand was confirmed with interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court. On this ground also, contention of the learned advocate is to be rejected. 6. Now, coming to the issue, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-whereas duty demand confirmed was Rs. 80,631/-. In this case, raw materials on which Cenvat credit was availed were found short and the claim of the authorized signatory that same have been sent for job work was found to be wrong and therefore, demand of duty was upheld. Since there was a clear mis-declaration by the appellant-company as regards accounting of raw materials as well as their dispatch to the job workers, the penalty under Section 11AC is attracted. Therefore, penalty under Section 11AC is upheld. Lower authorities did not give option to the appellants to pay penalty to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
