9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. A show cause notice dated 30th September, 1999 was issued to the petitioner by the Joint Director, Directorate General, Anti Evasion (Central Excise), Kolkata Zonal Unit, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 6,75,257/- should not be imposed in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on 65053.75 Kgs of finished goods cleared by the petitioners from their factory during the period 1998-99. The petitioners were also required to show cause why penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section I1AB should not be imposed on the petitioners. 4. The petitioners duly replied to the aforesaid show cause notice, by a letter dated. 5th October. 1999, inter alia contending that even be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of Excise Duty together with statutory interest on 14th April, 1999 and 23rd September, 1999 by way of deposit of Rs. 13,50,516/-. The aforesaid deposit was made even before issuance of formal demand notice by the concerned authorities. 9. It was argued that on the date of passing of the order dated 1st February, 2001, the amount of Central Excise Duty including the interest payable thereon had already been deposited by the petitioners. The adjudicating authority wrongfully and illegally imposed 100% penalty of Rs. 6,75,257.93 upon the petitioners under Section 11AC of the 1944 Act. 10. By a letter dated 9th February, 2001, the petitioners made a representation for refund and/or remission of 75% of the penalty of Rs. 6,75,257/93 in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeal II. After hearing the petitioners and the Department, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeal II passed an order dated 29th September, 2008 rejecting the appeal. 17. Aggrieved by the order in appeal dated 29th September, 2003, the petitioners filed an appeal being Appeal No. ESM 80/05 before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the CESTAT. The appeal has been dismissed by an order dated 27th July, 2005. 18. The short question involved in this writ application is whether 100% penalty could have been imposed on the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that the disputed duty had been paid before issuance of the sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
