TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been not paid as per the verification report. Though the appellant claims that he has paid the duty, but no evidence of the same has been provided. Moreover, the Range Superintendent has given a fair opportunity and there are no reason whatsoever to dis-believe its report and accept the submission of the appellants that the duty is paid - the duty of Rs.1,64,778/- remains to be considered paid along with interest under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is found that the same is liable to be paid by the appellants. Accordingly, the equal amount of penalty is liable to be paid by the appellants under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After going to the procedural infraction alleged to be committed by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative for the Respondent ORDER The appellants, M/s Konark Pipes and Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., are manufacturer of PVC Pipes of different sizes and varieties. The Preventive Officers on the basis of intelligence received, visited to the factory of the appellants and have observed that the appellants were not maintaining the invoices properly ; were not paying applicable duty ; were assigning the same number of different invoices issued for the same order to different parties and has utilised two sets of invoice Books bearing Serial Number 26 to 50 and thus evaded Central Excise duty. On completion of investigation, show-cause notice dated 21.01.2007 was issued to the appellants demanding duty of Rs.22,56,445/- under the provision of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period., but overall they have followed the procedure and paid applicable tax. He further submits that during the course of issue came before this Bench and in course of hearing held on 15.01.2020, this Bench has ordered the original authority to verify the claim of the appellants that the duty has been duly discharged in respect of 62 invoices. He submits that the Department has seen the admitted records and the same may considered by the Bench. 4. The Ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue, submits that the verification report dated 24.04.2020 forwarded by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar IX Range, has since been received and the same is placed before the Bench. 5. Heard both sides and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, 2002 on the appellants. It only proposed to impose penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As per the findings as above, it is ordered that the appellant shall pay the non-paid duty of Rs.1,64,778/- along with penalty under Rule 11 AC ibid. We do not find that there is need to impose any other penalties. Keeping in view the facts of the case that substantial allegations of the Department that the appellants have not paid duty, have fallen flat. In view of the fact that as against the allegation of evasion of duty about Rs.22 lakhs, the actual evasion of duty is only Rs.1.64 lakhs. Therefore, we find that the procedural infraction, if any, could be taken care of in the penalty already imposed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
