9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty to these depots for onward sale or further clearances to another depot, from where final sale is effected. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the duty liability on the freight element incurred on inter-depot transfer of petroleum products for payment of duty. The Revenue after conducting certain inquiry of the records of the appellants held a view that the appellants were not discharging Central Excise duty on the correct value in terms of Rule 7 of Valuation Rules. Where there is no sale of product ex-factory and the goods were actually sold from the depot the appellants discharged duty on such depot value. There were instances, where the goods were actually not sold from a depot but were cleared to another depot for sale fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the Tribunal is required to make a distinction between the voluntary payment and tax evasion for longer period and the existence of required elements like suppression, fraud etc., for penal proceedings. In other words, the appellant's admission of duty liability itself should not be construed as existence of elements for imposition of penalty under section 11AC. 4. The learned Authorised Representative contested the appeal on the ground that the closure of the case, which is pleaded by the appellants, is not admissible. The demand is for extended period. The payment for such differential duty before issue of notice does not preclude the adjudicating authority in proceedings against the appellants in case the elements for im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom depot. They have continued the practice as per the earlier system when they were paying tax in the warehouse located in various places as the warehouses were discharging duty on petroleum products before the withdrawal of such facility in 2004. The demand, in the present case, pertains to the period after withdrawal of such facility. The plea of the appellants is that they have continued the old practice and as such, there is no malafide on their part. We note that withdrawal of warehousing facility has brought new responsibility to the appellants as the place of removal for the excisable goods are to be determined at the time of clearance of goods from the factory. When the goods were not sold from the depot to which they were cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erwise of the elements for imposition of penalty. In the present case, the same has been done. Since the criteria for both, extended period of demand as well as imposition of penalty are one and the same and same demand has been confirmed for extended period, we find a different interpretation cannot be invoked for waiver of penalty. In fact, there is no provision to waive penalty imposable under section 11AC in Central Excise Act, 1944. We also note that the appellants paid 25% of penalty imposed under section 11AC within 30 days of receipt of the impugned order. As such, the remaining penalty stands waived in terms of the legal provisions itself. Accordingly, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
