9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 921/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- by holding that the first respondent is not liable to equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC which is on the higher side considering the fact that the first respondent did not gain anyway from the evasion found? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law to reduce the mandatory penalty imposed from Rs. 92,921/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- when the act of the assessee in suppressing the information warrants invocation of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A for demand of duty and imposition of equal penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 in the present case? 3. Whether the provisions of Section 11AC can be made ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case has recorded a finding that the assessee knew very well that there has been a revision in the cost of raw material supplied by M/s. Hyundai and that automatically would have a direct bearing on the assessable value of the final product which is arrived by the cost construction method; further, the suppression or failure to disclose what an assessee is bound to disclose to the department amounts to fraud with clear intention to evade payment of duty; the facts came to light only when it was unearthed by the Preventive Officers of the Department on visiting the assessee factory. With the above finding, the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the first respondent/assessee preferred appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal is justified in reducing the imposition of penalty which was imposed equivalent to that of differential duty. This question is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise reported in [(2009) 13 SCC 448 = 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that once Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is applicable, there is no justification in quantifying the amount and the penalty imposed must be equivalent to the differential duty re-determined under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Referring to the decision in the case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
