TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled was reversed immediately on being pointed out. Taking the facts into consideration, the facts do not disclose any intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is unjustified and requires to be set aside - appeal allowed in part. - E/42168/2017 - A/40008/2018 - Dated:- 2-1-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,362/- in respect of invoices issued by M/s. Sri Balaji Steel Traders. Further, they had not paid duty of ₹ 41,219/- on the goods manufactured and cleared. A show cause notice dated 29.2.2016 was issued. After adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demand of ₹ 6,14,335/- being the credit availed in respect of capital goods and inputs transferred to Unit II and also the CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a procedural lapse due to ignorance of the provisions of law. Immediately on being pointed out by the department, the appellants reversed the entire credit and paid up the demand along with interest. The amount so reversed and paid being much before the issuance of show cause notice, there was no intention to evade payment of duty. In any case, if the appellant had transferred the capital goods / ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that they are not challenging the demand of duty or the interest thereon. The contest is confined only to the penalty of ₹ 6,14,335/- and ₹ 41,219/- both imposed under section 11AC of the Act. The breach of law alleged in the present case is that the appellant had transferred the capital goods/inputs without raising invoices and without reversing the credit. The appellant has s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
