TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the LAA in his findings considered the appellants plea and reduced the duty amount based on verification report received from the adjudicating authority - As regards invoking extended period intention to evade payment of duty which was already collected but not remitted to the government is suppression of facts has been clearly established and the same was admitted by the appellant and paid the duty amount - reduced demand ordered by LAA and consequent Section 11AC penalty and interest is liable to be upheld. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in so far as the demand and Section 11AC penalty and demand of interest - Decided against assessee. - Appeal No.E/97/2009 - FINAL ORDER No.41000/2015 - Dated:- 17-4-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment, they have paid an amount of ₹ 3,84,251/-vide T.R. 6 challandt. 26.2.2015. Therefore, they have paid entire demand and not liable for penalty and interest. She relied on the following :- 1) CCE VsKrishnaram Dyeing Finishing Works 2013 (298) ELT 376 (Guj.) 2) A. Tathinam, Prop. Michael Match Works Vs CCE 1992 (60) ELT 451 (Tribunal) 3) CCE Mangalore Vs Pals Microsystems Ltd. 2009 (234) ELT 428 (Kar.) 4) CCE Mangalore Vs Pals Microsystems Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 305 (SC) 5) Mohan Bakers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Kolkata 2008 (221) ELT 308 (Tri.-Kol.) 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R reiterated the findings and the adjudication order at para03.01, 04.01 and submits that extended period hasbeen rightly invoked and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as on the partner of the company. Whereas the LAA in his findings considered the appelants plea and reduced the duty amount based on verification report received from the adjudicating authority. The relevant para 6.3 of OIA is reproduced as under :- Based on the above verification report, it is observed that the appellant are eligible for cenvat credit to the tune of ₹ 17,76,563/-. The total demand made by the Lower Authority in the impugned order is ₹ 34,72,714/-. The amount already paid by the appellants and appropriated by the Lower Authority in the impugned order is ₹ 13,11,900/-. The Lower Authority has stated in the verification report dated 07.11.2008 that the appellants are eligible to avail cenvat credit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Union Quality Plastic Ltd. Vs CCE (supra) by relying the Hon bleHigh Court decision of CCE VsNeminath Fabrics Ltd. (supra) ruled in favour of the Revenue. The relevant paragraphs of the above High Court s order are reproduced as under :- The issue referred [2009 (239) E.L.T. 341 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] for consideration by the Larger Bench is whether the show cause notice issued after six months from the date of visit of Revenue officers or the date of completion of investigations, as reflected in the show cause notice, is barred by limitation in terms of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944; or the show cause notice may be issued, within the extended period of five years from the date of visit of Revenue officers or completion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
