Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the corresponding rules was leviable on the appellant when the undervaluation arose from reliance on the supplier's declared price and there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.
Analysis: The value adopted for the component in question was taken from the supplier's declared particulars. The record showed that the supplier's description did not clearly disclose the omission of the bulb's value in the price of the lamp, and the appellant acted on that declaration. On those facts, the omission was held to be bona fide and not the result of any deliberate suppression, misstatement, or fraudulent intent to evade duty. In the absence of mala fide conduct, the ingredients for invocation of the penal provisions and the extended consequences of the demand were not satisfied.
Conclusion: Penalty was not leviable and the appellant succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The order imposing penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with return of the deposited amount directed.
Ratio Decidendi: Penal consequences for duty short-payment require suppression of facts or intent to evade duty, and mere reliance on supplier-declared values without mala fide conduct does not attract such penalty.