TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. - E/2857-2858/2004 - (DB) - A/51983-51984/2017 –EX (DB) - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri Puneet Bansal, Advocate for the Appellants Rep. by Shri HC Saini, DR for the respondent Per Mr. M.V. Ravindran These appeals are directed against OIO No. 03/2004 dated 23.02.2004. 2. Heard both sides and perused the record. 3. The Order-in-Original was disposed of by this bench by final order No. 736-737/2006 dated 28.07.2006 holding that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. As against this order, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court by the judgment dated 14.12.2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the adjudicating authority, in Para-32, for imposition of penalty, has specifically held as under:- 32. Now, I come to the second issue. I find that clearance of HSD from EOU to DTA is an admitted fact and duty amounting to ₹ 4,52,585/- involved in the matter has already been deposited by the assessee. However, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and recovery of interest under Section 11AB has been disputed by the assessee on the ground that duty has been voluntarily deposited before issue of show cause notice and that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. I find that the visiting Central Excise officers detected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to evade the duty. In view of the above facts, assessee s submission in this regard is not acceptable and penalty under Section 11AC is imposable on the assessee and interest as per the provisions of Section 11AB is also recoverable from the assessee. It can be seen from the above reproduced Para-32, that the adjudicating authority has recorded the factual matrix of transportation of duty free diesel received from EOU to DTA. In the grounds of appeal, there is no rebuttal by the appellant. On a specific query from the bench, as to whether the appellant had informed to the departmental authority as to the existence of underground pipelines, the ld. Counsel admits fairly that it was not informed to the department. On the face of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
