TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not invokable. penalty is not imposable on the appellants - E/708/06 - Mum - Final Order No. A/611/2011-WZB/EB/C-II - Dated:- 23-6-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate for appellant Shri Y.K. Agarwal, SDR For Respondent Per :- Ashok Jindal By this appeal the appellants are seeking waiver of penalty imposed on them under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Facts of the case are that M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL in short) are the manufacturer of lubricating oil, auto wax, polish, speciality oils etc. On the basis of intelligence received to the effect that the appellants are manufacturing 'petrol plus' and 'diesel pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what is the final product and as per their declaration, they have classified their product under Chapter Heading 2710.90. He further submitted that this fact is very well in the knowledge of the department and they were filing their returns regularly which were also in the knowledge of the department. Therefore, the allegation of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of Central Excise Act/Rules, 1944 with intent to evade duty is not sustainable. He also submitted that although the appellants have paid the duty along with interest, it does not mean that they have admitted their liability for imposing penalty. He also submitted that this Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case the appellant Company have filed declaration on 23rd October, 2000 to classify their product under Sub-Heading 2710.90 which was very well in the knowledge of the departmental officers. If the department was of the view that their product is to be classified under sub-Heading 3811.00, the investigation would have been started immediately on filing the classification list which they have failed to do so. We also find that the investigation in this case has started in only November 2003 and show-cause notice has been issued in 2005. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in this case. Although the appellants have paid duty along with interest and the appellant had not claimed refund of duty and interest paid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
