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 equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was imposable on the assessee despite payment of differential duty and interest before issuance of the show cause notice, where the short payment arose from a clerical error in valuation and the department was aware of the stock transfers.
Analysis: The liability arose from valuation of clearances made to sister units under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determination of Value of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The short payment was found to have resulted from a bona fide clerical mistake in adopting 110% instead of 115% of cost, and the assessee corrected the error and paid the differential duty before the show cause notice. The transactions were reflected in the returns and correspondence with the department, and the record did not show fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or any intent to evade duty. In these circumstances, the case fell within the principle that pre-show-cause payment with no intent to evade does not justify mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, and the authorities cited for compulsory penalty were held inapplicable on the facts.
Conclusion: Penalty under Section 11AC was not exigible and the departmental appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where short payment is caused by a bona fide and disclosed clerical mistake, and duty and interest are paid before issuance of the show cause notice without any intent to evade duty, equal penalty under Section 11AC is not attracted.