2013 (11) TMI 952

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... kumar C. Kabutarwala, Partner of the appellant. Shri P.K.C. Kabutarwala, in his statement admitted that the details mentioned in such papers are with respect to finished man made fabrics which were illicitly manufactured and cleared by them. He also stated that the appellant had received the grey fabrics relating to said MMF without any challan, brought back the fabrics processed in appellants unit and cleared the same to their respective merchant manufacturers without making entries in the production/clearance records and without preparing invoices/without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. The officers of Central Excise also recorded another statement of Shri P.K.C. Kabutarwala, Partner of the appellant on 05.06.2002, where .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) under his OIA dt.17.07.2007, allowed the appeal filed by Shri P.K.C. Kabutarwala, Partner of the appellant and set aside his penalty. However, the case against present appellant was confirmed against which the appellant has filed this appeal. During the disposal of stay application filed by the present appellant, a deposit of Rs.3 lakhs was asked to be made which was complied by the appellant and duty liability was not agitated. 4. Shri M.N. Saiyed, Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant made same arguments which were taken by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals). He reiterated the grounds of the present appeal and argued that the entire duty was paid prior to issue of sho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se notice is required to be issued within one year from the date of visit of the Central Excise officers. The argument taken by the appellant is therefore required to be rejected. 6.1 The second argument taken by the appellant is that once the entire duty liability was paid prior to issue of show cause notice, then there was no question of imposing penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. No specific provision has been quoted by the appellant in grounds of appeal but it is apparent that he is referring to Clause (2A) and (2B) of the Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 6.2 In the case of the appellant, since it was a case of fraud and suppression with intention to evade Central Excise duty, therefore the correct prov .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X