TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustice will be met if such penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000 as there is no doubt that appellant has not maintained statutory records properly – Penalty imposed under Rule 173 Q (i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 1 lakh. Penalty u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944 – Held that:- The period from April-1994 to 27.09.1996 will not be covered under the provisions of section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for imposition of penalties - the provisions was brought into statute only on 28.09.1996, to that extent, the claim of for not imposition of equivalent penalty for the demand of the duty from April-1994 to 28.09.1996 is valid - Penalty equivalent to the amount of duty payable from April-1994 to 28.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , AR PER : M V Ravindran This appeal is directed against order in appeal No. COMMR. (A)/814 to 816/VDR/2000, dt.25.09.2000 2. This appeal was decided by this bench finally on 16.09.2004 setting aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. 3. Aggrieved by such an order the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as revenue remanded the matter back to the tribunal to reconsider the issue for imposition of penalties under section 11AC, keeping in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. dharmendra Textile Processors [2008 (231) ELT 3]. On remand from the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the main appellant M/s. Western Electrical Company has cleared goods on which no duty liability was discharged, in the guise of production of some other firm. The appellant herein had already discharged the Central Excise duty and interest thereof. They are aggrieved by the penalty imposed by the lower authorities. 5. Ld. counsel S.R. Dixit appearing on behalf of the appellant would draw our attention that the issue before the bench is to be gone into merits as there cannot be any suppression fact and again extended period invoked is incorrect. It is his submission that for an identical amount, Commissioner of Central Excise Custom, Vadodara issue an show-cause-notice dated 16.02.2009 wherein they directed the appellant herein to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and and also imposed penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and penalties of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant under Rule 173 Q of the Central Excise Rule 1994 and also ordered for interest on the appellant to the provision of section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 8. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, we find that the appellant has not contested the confirmation of the demand, anyway. On the perusal of the said grounds of appeal, the appellant herein seeks to only set aside penalties imposed by the lower authorities. 9. As regards penalty imposed under section 11AC, we find that the ld. counsel's arguments are basically revolving around issuance of second show-cause-notice by invoking extended period while ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of Rs. One Lakh is disproportionate, and ends of justice will be met if such penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/-, as there is no doubt that appellant has not maintained statutory records properly. In view of the foregoing, penalty of imposed under Rule 173 Q (i) of the Central Excesses Rules, 1944 is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- from Rs. 1 lakh. 11. As regards the quantum of penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we find that the period involved in this case is from April - 1994 to May-1998 the lower authorities have imposed penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act for the entire period. In our view, the period from April-1994 to 27.09.1996 will not be covered under the provisions of section 11AC of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period 28.09.1996 to March-1999, we find that the amount of duty liability has already been discharged and hence the appellant are eligible to get the benefit of the reduced amount of penalty of 25% of the amount of duty liability. This law has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Akash fashions, respectfully following the same, for the penalty imposed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period 28.09.1996 to March-1998 we extend the benefit of section 11AC, and direct appellant to pay the penalty @ of 25% of the amount of duty for this period. Adjudicating authority will work out the duty liability for the period 28.09.1996 to March 1998 by extending the benefit of payment of 25% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
