TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s upheld by the lower appellate authority confirmed - penalty imposed by the original authority restored – Dept. appeal allowed - E/463/2010, E/485/2010 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2011 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. Ms. Uma Maheshwari, Advocate for the Assessees Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR for the Department Heard both sides. 2. The brief facts of the case as recorded in Appeal No. E/485/2010 are as follows:- 2. During the course of audit of accounts of the assessee by the Internal Audit Party attached to this department, it was noticed that the assessee had collected an amount of Rs. 1,01,74,796/- from Ekadantha Synthetics, Bhiwandi towards additional conversion charges for the period from 1.4.2005 to 31.12.2005 through deb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise,Maduraias per the Corrigendum dated 6.8.2007 issued from file C.No.V/52/15/19/2007 Adjn. After due process of law, the Joint Commissioner, vide 010 No.02/2008-CE dated 27.02.2008 confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.8,30,2641- and appropriated the amount already paid towards the demand. He also ordered for collection of interest of Rs. 1,65,602/- under Section 1 lAB of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs.8,30,264/- under Section 1 1AC of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals),Madurai. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.139/2010 dated 30-04-2010, has modified the impugned Order-in-Original to the extent that he has uphel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after a long gap of time but almost concurrently. Thus, there is a clear suppression by the appellants as they have received extra money for the very same consignments but have not taken the same into account for paying the central excise duty. This has been done only for evading payment of duty and only when the departmental officers after auditing the accounts have pointed out the escapement of duty, the appellants have paid the duty amount at a later point of time. He also states that the appellants have not challenged the application of longer period of limitation which has been invoked on the ground of suppression etc. and they are not challenging the duty demand. Hence, on the very same ground, penalty is imposable under Section 11AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
