TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 & E/1189/2012-EX[SM] - A/71363-71364/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 18-4-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Ashish Kumar Shukla, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in these two appeals is related to investigation and demand pursuant to search/ inspection in the factory of the appellant on 01/08/1999. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Control Panels such as MCC Panel, AMF Panel, Lighting Panels, D. G. Panel, Feeder Pillar, etc. 2. There was a search/inspection in the premises of the appellant s factory on 01/08/1999, wherein certain records were resumed which included two parallel Invoices Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the said parallel invoices aforementioned ₹ 2,42,656/- was demanded, as the said amount was collected from the buyer of the goods, was not paid to the credit of the Central Government. Accordingly, these amounts were demanded, vide Show Cause Notice dated 09/01/2004 invoking the extended period of limitation along with further proposal of penalty as well as proposal of personal penalty on the Proprietor - Shri Yogesh Gupta. The show Cause Notice also contained proposal for appropriation of the demands from pre-deposit already made ₹ 4,75,000/- deposited on 03-04/08/1999, before issuance of the Show Cause Notice. 3. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated on contest and vide Order-in-Original dated 17/12/2004 confirmed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of ₹ 2,42,656/- under Section 11D and also under Section 11A of the Act of ₹ 2,96,710/- with further penalty of ₹ 2,96,710/- was imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. Further interest on the amount of ₹ 2,96,710/- was also demanded. The appellant again filed appeal before ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal dated 31/08/2010, held the demand of ₹ 2,42,656/- under Section 11D is legal and proper. Further it was also held that the demand for the period 01/04/1998 to 08/01/1999 being beyond 5 years is hit by limitation under Section 11A of the Act and directed the Adjudicating Authority to recalculate the duty liability in consultation with the appellant. The penalty under Section 11AC of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther in the regular books or the private records) clearance by the appellant. 9. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the fact on record, it is deemed fit and proper to confirm the demand of ₹ 1,63,815/-. As the appellant had deposited the duty at the time of investigation on 03-04/08/1999 they are entitled to benefit of concessional penalty of 25% on the confirmed amount of ₹ 1,63,815/- which works out to ₹ 40,953/-. I further direct the Adjudicating Authority to calculate the interest and to adjust the same from the excess amount is still left unadjusted out of the amount of ₹ 4,75,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the Appeal No. E/3835/2010 is disposed of as withdrawn and Appeal No. E/1189/2012 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
