TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so to restore the penalty on the respondent under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On a perusal of the records, we note that the department had framed a case of clandestine removal of excisable goods (angles and panels), against the respondent on the basis of what appeared from the results of interception of a vehicle (tempo) loaded with such goods. In adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice, the original authority found that the respondent had suppressed clearance value of such goods to the extent of Rs. 88,51,494/- for the period 1998-99. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of duty of over Rs. 8.27 lakhs against the party by invoking the extended period of limitation under the proviso to sub-section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee was the maximum limit and that a penalty under the said provision should not necessarily be equal to duty. Further to this, the learned SDR today relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) wherein the court's earlier judgment in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors - 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) was clarified and it was further held that payment of duty before or after show-cause notice did not alter the penal liability under Section 11AC. In this appeal, the appellant has also opposed the waiver, by the lower appellate authority, of penalty under Rule 173Q, on the strength of the Supreme Court's judgment in ZB Nagarkar v. Union of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AC of the Act or under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The opening paragraph of sub-section (1) of Section 11AC has been reproduced under the "grounds of the appeal". Ingredients such as fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, etc. for a penalty under Section 11AC are writ large on this text reproduced by the appellant. This excerpt from Section 11AC is followed by a bold averment that a penalty under Section 11AC is mandatory and not discretionary. Nevertheless, there is no whisper as to on what ground or for what reason there should be such a penalty on the respondent. There is not even an attempt to establish that one or other ground mentioned in Section 11AC is available against the respondent. In th....