2010 (8) TMI 709

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....     Tax (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. ST/185/0 7 6 5 / 0 7 - C E dt. 16-2-07 August 02 to March 05 Rs. 22,880 Rs. 100 per day u/s 76 Rs. 500 u/s 77 Rs. 22,880 u/s 78 2. ST/242/0 7 100/07-CE dt. 07-3-07 August 02 to September 05 Rs. 83,104 Rs. 100 per day u/s 76 Rs. 83,104 u/s 78 3. ST/264/0 7 137/07-CE dt. 22-3-07 August 02 to March 05 R s . 4,87,867 Rs 100 per day u/s 76 Rs. 4,87,867 u/s 78  2. These matters stood posted for hearing on several dates. None of the respondents appeared on any occasion or sought adjournment. Same is the case today. In the circumstances, these matters are taken up for disposal.   3. All the respondents are engaged in providing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authorities:   i. CCE v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. 2004 (168) ELT 466 (Trib. - Delhi) (LB)   ii. CCE v. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries 2004 (165) ELT 508 (Kar.)   iii. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE [2005] 2 STT 117 (Bang. - CESTAT)   5.1 It is submitted that these authorities were challenged by the revenue before the appropriate appellate forum. These had not reached finality. The revenue has relied on the following decisions to argue that in a case of willful evasion of duty, liability to penalty under section 11AC did not stand excluded at the threshold merely on deposit of the amount after having been caught and before the issue of show cause notice.   i. CCE v. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. 2006 (202....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[2009] 180 Taxman 609 had held that an assessee who had failed to pay excise duty on account of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, etc. enumerated under section 11AC incurred liability to penalty under the said provision. Payment of defaulted duty amount and interest before issue of show cause notice did not absolve the assessee from its liability to penalty prescribed under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. In view of this judgment, the Commissioner had relied on the decisions, which stood overruled. As the original authority had found that the impugned liability to service tax and interest had arisen on account of suppression of facts by the respondents, the demand of service tax, applicable interest and penalties imposed on t....