TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 277X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the concept of SSI exemptions but failed to prove that his entire stock is covered under said SSI exemption. The absence of Central Excise Registration in the given scenario is nothing but the intent of the appellant to avoid his tax liability - It has been settled that for imposition of penalty mensrea has to be there. Further, admittedly, appellant has paid the duty as was demanded vide the subsequent show-cause-notice. The prosecution of the said subsequent show-cause-notice met the fate of deemed conclusion on the payment of duty demanded therein by the appellant - I am not at all convinced with the argument that the said deemed conclusion is applicable to the impugned show-cause-notice. The present show-cause-notice is with respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants and its associate companies/firms to have been engaged in manufacture and clandestine removal of LED Lights, LED Bulbs and Panels etc., the department searched the factory as well as the shop premises of the appellants on 29.10.2015, the officers found unaccounted finished goods amounting to ₹ 2,25,90,105/- in the factory premises along with the raw material/packing material whose value could not be ascertained. In the shop premises the unaccounted goods for an amount of ₹ 40,77,334/- were found in respect of which the appellant could not produce any valid document. Accordingly, the goods from both the places were detained. 2.1 On the basis of facts and evidences, department alleged that the appellant had full knowl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven to the raiding team and were even produced before the Adjudicating Authority below, but the same were not taken into consideration. Hence, no confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty was at all warranted. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this account itself. Also there was no intent to remove those goods without payment of duty. Rule 25, therefore, has wrongly been invoked. Also due to the reason that the said Rule is subjected to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Excise Act. With respect to imposition of penalty it is submitted that there is no allegation of non-levy or short levy or non-payment or short payment or erroneous refund of duty. Hence, no penalty is imposable under Excise Rules. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants were manufacturing excisable goods and had not obtained the Central Excise Registration. Nothing else need to be proved to hold that the appellants have intention to not to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured by them despite that those were excisable. Thus, it is clear that appellant has violated Rules 4,5,6,8,9,10,11 and 16. 6. As far as the applicability of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act concerned, the only element for the applicability thereof, no doubt, is mensrea that is the intent to avoid the tax liability either in full or in half. The above observation that appellant knew about his goods to be excisable not only this he was also aware about the concept of SSI exemptions but failed to prove that his entire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
