TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diately on intimation from Revenue - Held that: - even in such a situation it is open for the Revenue to examine the existence or otherwise 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. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/00093/2010 - 42915/2017 - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Appellant, Shri Raghavan Ramabhadran, Adv. For the Respondent, Shri K. V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned counsel for the appellants did not contest the case on merits, in view of the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Brakes India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2005 (184) EL.T. 179 (Tri. -Chennai) and in the case of M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. 144 (Tri. -Chennai). It is submitted that the appellants discharged, the full liability on such freight element. In fact, they have paid interest on delayed payment of duty. On receipt of the impugned order they have discharged 25% of the penalty imposed under section 11AC. 3. In the present appeal, the submission or the appellant is mainly focused on the penalty. The learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst provisions of section 11A. 5. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants are not contesting on the merits of the demand in view of the settled decisions by the Tribunal involving same set of facts. However, the only contest is against imposition of penalty. We have closely examined the impugned order as well as provisions of section 11A read with section 11AC as applicable to the facts of the present case. The point raised by the appellants is that when they have voluntarily discharged the differential Central Excise duty before the issue of notice, the matter should have been closed. The question of suppression or willful misstatement is not relevant in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were cleared from factory. To counter this, the appellants pleaded that prior to withdrawal of warehousing provision, the Revenue is aware that these depots are paying duty, following the legal provision of place of removal and the same practice is now carried over by the appellants for clearances from the factory. We find that with the withdrawal of warehousing facility, the onus is on the appellants to discharge duty correctly and the plea that they have followed the earlier practice, hence there is no suppression cannot be admitted on the face value. More important legal question is whether the fact that the appellants are pleading absence of malafide only for penalty will have effect on the demand for extended period. We note that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
