TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of C.C.E & Cus. Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [2014 (1) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and as observed by the authorities below that there was no intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the respondent, the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent had manufactured and cleared the excisable goods to the tune of ₹ 5,28,50,227/- without payment of duty and the goods were ultimately exported by M/s Jumps (India) Impex. In this background, a show cause notice was issued proposing demand of duty from the respondent and the same was adjudicated. The adjudicating authority in its order observed that there was no intention to ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 are not invokable. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the respondent. 4. We have seen the said provisions and also examined the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of C.C.E Cus. Vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. 210 (260) ELTA71 (Guj.) wherein the Hon ble High Court has examined the issue and observed as under : 17. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is that the duty has not been levied, or paid or short-levied or short-paid or the refund is erroneously granted by reasons of fraud, collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts. If these ingredients are not present, penalty under Section 11AC cannot be levied. Since Rule 25 can be invoked subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, as a natural corollary, the ingredi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
