9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case are that M/s. Shree Sanyeeji Ispat Limited, West Boragaon, NH-37, Guwahati, Assam (the appellant-company herein) is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are registered with the Central Excise Department in this regard. 2. On 07.03.2008, Officers of the D.G.C.E.I., Kolkata visited the factory premises of the appellant- company and conducted stock verification of the finished goods and raw materials. 2.1. On stock verification of the finished goods, a shortage of 20.635 MT of HSD Bar, 18.315 MT of MS Coil (Plain), 35.135 MT of MS Coil (TMT), 16.370 MT of MSR Bar Patti and 60.490 MY of MS TMT was detected by the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty totally amounting toRs.57,60,606/- [Rs.5,82,352/- + Rs.51,78,254/-], along with interest, and imposed penalty equal to the duty demand confirmed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. A personal penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- was also imposed on Shri J.P. Jaiswal, Director of the appellant-company / appellant no. 2 under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC ibid. 6. Aggrieved against the imposition of penalties against them, the appellants have filed these appeals. They have not contested the central excise duty liabilities confirmed in the impugned order. 7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director of the company, namely, Shri J.P. Jaiswal (Appellant No. 2 herein) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not maintainable in law. 7.2. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants prays for setting aside the penalties imposed on the appellant-company as well as its Director. 8. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submitted that the shortage of finished goods and raw materials were detected during the course of verification by the Officers and the appellants had admitted to the said shortages and thus, he contends that penalties have been rightly imposed on them. Accordingly, he supported the impugned order impos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such duty or on the basis of duty ascertained by a Central Excise Officer before service of notice on him under sub-section (1) in respect of the duty, and inform the Central Excise Officer of such payment in writing, who, on receipt of such information shall not serve any notice under sub-section (1) in respect of the duty so paid:" 10.1. From the above legal provisions, we find that where an assessee agrees to pay the differential duty before issuance of Show Cause Notice, Show Cause Notice need not be issued. In this case, we observe that the duty along with interest has already been paid before issuance of the notice and the same stands appropriated in the impugned order. 10.2. We observe that the investigation has not brought in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excisable to duty under Chapter sub-heading 7610.90. Till 2002, he paid the duty. Thereafter, he stopped paying duty on the ground that it is not excisable to tax. However, after the department noticed the default and brought to their notice, they have paid the duty and the interest even before the issue of a show cause notice. However, a show cause notice came to be issued and an adjudication was conducted and the Assessing Authority held that duty is payable and for non-payment of duty, interest is payable and consequently, equal amount of penalty and hence appropriated the amount already paid and raised a demand for the balance. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Commissioner. The Appellate Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court in the case of Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. [2018 (361) E.L.T. 647 (Mad.)] wherein it has been held as under: - "4. The stand of the assessee in the present case is the duty had been remitted prior to the issuance of a demand for the same and thus, the levy of penalty in terms of Section 11AC is not warranted. Reliance has been placed by the assessee upon the provisions of Section 11AC and the proviso thereunder, both extracted below :- 11AC. Penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. - (a) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
