TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules 2002 for which he gave his finding that there is default in payment of duty which renders the appellant liable for penalty under the provision of Rule 8 (3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 as the Rule itself specifies such penalty which is read with Section 11AC of the Act. Penalty being a criminal remedy to set right a defaulter which is to be proved by the prosecution itself beyond all reasonable doubt, in the absence of any such finding regarding fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of fact or contravention of the provisions of this Act or Rules penalty under Section 11AC is not attracted. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) imposing 50% penalty on the appellant for not discharging duty liability of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how-cause notice, the ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that entire duty of ₹ 26,24,931/- has been paid along with interest and show-cause notice was time barred in respect of duty liability and interest as well. He too challenged the confirmation of 50% penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the ground that show-cause notice was time barred. Referring to several decisions including the one passed in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. CCE Mumbai reported in ., he also indicated that it has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the said case that intention to evade duty must be proved and for this misstatement or suppression of facts must be wilful to invoke extended period for which he pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not found mentioned in his order. However, the contention of the appellant is acceptable that it has mentioned the duty liability in its monthly return and there is no stipulated mandatory time frame available for discharge of duty liability within a particular time period beyond one month which is payable without interest. Appellant was put to show-cause notice for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1994. In para 22 of the order of the adjudicating authority, he noticed no suppression of fact and only found non compliance of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 2002 for which he gave his finding that there is default in payment of duty which renders the appellant liable for penalty under the provision of Rule 8 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
