9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner (Appeals) No.3/2010 dt. 22.3.2010. 2. The finding against the appellant is that when they were about to cross the exemption limit available under Notification No.8/03-CE dt. 1.3.03, the appellant used invoices of another firm to clear excisable goods manufactured by them. The officers visited the factory premises on 1.2.2007. An amount of Rs.2,65,447/- was paid towards duty liabi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 15.2.2007 and the major portion of the duty stands paid on 5.2.2007. Therefore, the finding of the original authority that it was merely a case of delay in registration should have been accepted. In the alternative, he also submits that they should be extended option to pay the concessional penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11AC in the light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) that it was a device to evade revenue is reasonable. Merely because the appellant paid duty before issue of show cause notice, penalty under Section 11AC cannot be waived. It is to be noticed that the appellants have not contested the demand of duty before the original authority. Another submission was made that the partners were also imposed penalties and, therefore, no separate penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given option to pay concessional penalty of 25% in terms of proviso to Section 11AC and therefore the said option should be given now by the Tribunal deserves to be accepted. In view of above, the appeal is disposed of as follows :- a) Penalty imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 11AC is upheld. b) However, the appellant is given an option to pay 57 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
