TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en decided and the petitioner-company, in lieu of the amount of Rs.15,44,883 towards Central Excise duty and equal amount towards penalty, has been asked to pay Rs.10 lakhs towards Central Excise duty and Rs.10 lakhs towards penalty. 2. The Joint Commissioner, Central Excise - V, Rohtak, being the adjudicating authority, confirmed the demand of Rs.15,44,883 towards Central Excise duty along with recovery of interest under section 1lB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') against the petitioner company. The authority had also imposed equal amount as penalty on the petitioner company under section 11AC of the Act, read with rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules')....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs were recorded in a panchnama dated 5-2-2007 drawn at the spot. The company had made entries in the Shipra Book (kacha copy). On the basis of material gathered, a show-cause notice dated 6-7-2007 was issued as to why the petitioner company be not held liable to pay Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.15,44,883. The show-cause notice further asked as to why Central Excise duty of Rs. 4 lakhs, already deposited by the company, should not be appropriated towards the duty proposed to be demanded above. The show-cause notice further called upon the assessee as to why the interest at the appropriate rate under section 1lB of the Act and penalty under section 11AC of the Act, read with rule 25 of the Rules be not imposed. Adjudicating authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'t find any force in the plea taken by the party that the duty amount of Rs.3,68,685 demanded based on Shipra Note Book is duplication of demand." 6. The order passed by the adjudicating authority was assailed before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal and held that the adjudicating authority had rightly inferred that the appellants have cleared the goods with a collective intention to evade payment of duty collectively amounting to Rs.15,44,883. As stated above, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal with a prayer that the order in appeal may be set aside and amount of duty payable be reduced to Rs.3,43,285 and a refund of Rs.56,715 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he argument that there is a duplication of demand as raised before the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals), was also raised before the Tribunal but the same was not accepted. The Tribunal observed as under: "7…..The clearances using parallel invoice and clearances in respect of goods mentioned in note books stand admitted. Submission has been made that the benefit of cum-duty price should have allowed. These submissions may have a small impact on the total quantum of duty that may be confirmed. The applicant has not made out a prima facie case for waiver of the entire dues as pleaded for…." Taking into consideration that Rs.4 lakhs were deposited during the investigation against the amount of Rs.15,44,883 of Central ....