9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Tin Containers' falling under Tariff Heading 73 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of internal audit conducted by the Department, it was found that the appellant have not filed returns namely ER-4, ER-5, ER-6 and ER-7 for the period from February 2012 to March 2016; accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 23.04.2018 proposing to impose penalties amounting to Rs.96,000/- under Rule 12(6) and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for non-filing of above mentioned returns. After following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of penalties of Rs.96,000/- put together for non-filing the returns cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, whereas in the present case, penalties of Rs.96,000/- have been imposed. In support of his contention, he relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Anil Products Ltd vs. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2011 (274) ELT 431 (Tri. Ahmd.). 5. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the decision relied upon by the appellant in the case of Anil Products Ltd (supra) has been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of Buneesha Chem Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Raigad - 2019 (370) ELT 533 (Tri. Mum.). She further submits that in the era of self assessment, it is the duty of the assessee to file the returns and non-filing of returns in time attracts the penalties. 6. After considering t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice was issued on 23.04.2018 which is beyond the period of limitation. In fact, neither in the show cause notice nor in the impugned order, the grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation have been discussed. Nothing emerges from the impugned order that the appellant have not filed the requisite returns with intent to evade the payment of tax. Further, the decisions relied upon by the appellant as well as the respondent, are not strictly applicable in facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. In view of the discussion above, I am of the considered opinion that the imposition of penalties amounting to Rs.96,000/- is not sustainable and therefore, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
