9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per : K.A. Puj, J. (Oral)] - The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar has filed this tax Appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate the following substantial question of law for the determination and consideration of this Court :- "Whether CESTAT was correct in holding that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to impose penalty equivalent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondent-assessee under Section 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. While passing the said order, he has specifically held that since there is no case of clandestine removal of finished goods on records and also no suppression of facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the same only on being caught by the department. He has further observed that the mala fide intention of the respondent was, therefore, established and the facts of the case satisfied the ingredient for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. He, therefore, modified the order in original to the extent of imposing the penalty equal to the amount of duty confirmed. 5.This order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty and hence, he has not invoked the penal provisions under Section 11AC of the Act. Even otherwise, when Section 11AC is not applicable, there is no question of levying any penalty under that Section. The Commissioner has simply relied on the statement of Mr. Hitesh C. Shah. However, on the basis of the said statement, it cannot be said that there was an intention to evade the payment of duty. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
