TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 11AC of the Act. However, if such agreement has been recovered by the departmental officers, only at the time of visit on 5.7.2000, as has been made out in the impugned order as well as in the argument of the DR, the allegation of suppression will have to be upheld and penalty imposed fully justified - matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to verify the fact when the agreement came to the notice of the department and to pass a revised order in de novo proceedings - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/711/2003-DB - Final Order No. 20190 / 2017 - Dated:- 2-2-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member For the Appellant : Shri Shivaraj Balloli, Advocate For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Shri Shivaraj Balloli, advocate and also Shri N. Jagadish, DR for the Revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not challenging the payment of differential duty and interest, however, they prayed for setting aside the penalty imposed. His main arguments are summarized below: (i) The agreement between the appellant and HPL was within the knowledge of the department, since a copy thereof was submitted to the department even at the time of application for registration. The appellant took out registration before the supply of gases which commenced in January 2000. (ii) He submitted that since entire duty along with interest has been paid, the penalty imposed on the appellant may be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also not disputing the duty liability which stands discharged in full along with applicable interest. 6. The main ground raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that no penalty will be leviable on the appellant. Their submission is that the product supply agreement entered into with HPL was brought within the knowledge of the department at the time of registration taken before commencement of production. The show-cause notice has been issued on 4.6.2002 after the normal period of one year provided for in Section 11A. Consequently the appellant s argument is that there is no ground to allege suppression and consequently, no penalty is imposable under Section 11AC. The DR has argued that there is nothing on record to establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
