9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvestigations were carried out against the appellant for possible non-payment of Central Excise duty by misuse of the said SSI Notification and also possible collection of excise duty from the buyer and not depositing the same with the Government. The investigation concluded in the issue of show-cause notice 17.9.1999. The notice proposed demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 6,35,019/- in terms of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the period 1995-96 to 1996-97. Further, an amount of Rs. 7,76,509/- was sought to be confirmed under Section 11D of the Act as the said amount has been collected by the appellant as excise duty but not deposited with the Government. Proposals were als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce Act, 2003. Subsection (2) of the said Section clearly mentions that the cases where the amount has become payable prior to the passing of Finance Bill, 2003 will not be covered by this provision. 3. The learned AR contested the grounds of appeal. She submitted that the demand for non-payment of duty has clearly been confirmed under the provisions of Section 11A. Since the appellants had collected amount as excise duty all along and did not deposit with the Government, including this amount which is liable on excisable goods, the same was confirmed separately under Section 11D. Section 11A as well as Section 11D, applicable to different situations, were correctly invoked for different amounts. The total amount confirmed under Section 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue relating to penalty under Section 11AC, we have seen that the original authority has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 6,01,495/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944/Rule 173Q of Finance Act, 1944 was equal to this amount only. In other words, the penalty under Section 11AC/Rule 173Q was attributable to short-payment of Central Excise duty which is rightly confirmed under Section 11A. The strong objection of the appellant for the penalty is on the ground that the original authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 7,76,509/- under Section 11D which included the non-paid amount of Rs. 6,01,495/-. As such, it is their submission that the whole demand amount shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
