New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 509 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2015 (10) TMI 509 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - 2016 (331) E.L.T. 440 (All.) - Penalty u/s 11Ac - Benefit of reduced penalty - whether the appellant was entitled to the first and second proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with regard to the payment of penalty to the tune of 25% - Held that:- Penalty equal to the duty amount of ₹ 93,112.00 was imposed. It is also clear that the duty had already been deposited prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. We also find that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which, the total amount of penalty becomes payable. This option was not given in the instant case and, therefore, to that extent the order in original imposing penalty is in violation of the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. - duty had already been paid before the issuance of show cause notice. The appellant was therefore entitled to pay 25% penalty only. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Central Excise Appeal No. 190 of 2013 - Dated:- 30-9-2015 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon' .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

th regard to the payment of penalty to the tune of 25%. This question has been settled by a decision of this Court dated 09.08.2012 in Central Excise Appeal Deffective No. 23 of 2012, M/s Kotsons Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise and another as well as a decision of this Court dated 30.09.2015 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Tax) No. 1661 of 2009, M/s Chandra Kamal Corporation and another Vs. Union of India and others. In the instant case, the operrative portion of the order in original .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Nagar, Hathras Road, Agra, under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for surreptitious removal of the goods in this case. I also confirm the interest demanded under the provisions of Section 11AB Central Excise Act, 1944." From the aforesaid, it is clear that the penalty equal to the duty amount of ₹ 93,112.00 was imposed. It is also clear that the duty had already been deposited prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re the assessee had deposited the entire duty amount well before the show cause notice, the assessee was liable to pay only 25% of the duty amount as penalty and that the adjudicating authority could not demand more than 25% of the duty amount by way of penalty, in view of the first proviso to Section 11AC of the Act. Based on the said order of the Delhi High Court, the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a circular dated 22.5.2008. For facility, the said circular is extracted hereunder: .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e has been received by the Board inviting its attention to the Delhi High Court judgment in the case of K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd [2008-TIOL-240-HC-DEL-CX]. In para 27 of the order, the High Court has opined that the adjudication authority should explicitly state the option available to the assessee under section 11AC of the Act in its adjudication order. 2. The matter has been examined . The first and second proviso to section 11AC of the Act read as follows; "Provided that where such duty as d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso: " It is seen that these proviso to section 11AC of the Act have been specifically inserted to ensure speedy recoveries of the disputed amount. It is an incentive given to the assessee that if he pays the duty amount along with interest, the penalty is reduced to 25% of the duty. This provision is beneficial to the department as well as the assessee as rightly pointed out by Delhi High Court and therefore, the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Central Board of Excise and Customs clarified that the proviso to Section 11AC was specifically inserted to ensure speedy recovery of the disputed amount and consequently an incentive was given to the assessee that, if he pays the duty and interest within the stipulated period, then penalty was reduced to 25% of the duty. The Board clarified that the said proviso was beneficial not only for the Department but also to the assessee. The Delhi High Court in K.P. Pouches (supra) held that the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II vs. Gopal Fiber, 2010 (256) E.L.T. 10, the Gujrat High Court after considering the circular dated 22.5.2008 held, that wherever penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was imposed, the provisions contained in first and second proviso of Section 11AC should be mandatorily mentioned in the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Similar view was again reiterated in Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I vs. Bhagyodaya Silk Industries, 201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version