2013 (4) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rep by: Mr. N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR) Per: M. Veeraiyan: Heard both sides. 2. The original authority, vide order dated 29.12.2005, confirmed demand of differential duty of Rs. 4,19,187/- while adjudicating four show-cause notices and demanded interest. In addition, he imposed penalty of Rs.3,59,555/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The party filed an appeal befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... upon. Moreover, the appellant had not disclosed the price preference to the department. Even in the original proceedings nothing is mentioned about the price preference." 3.2. However, the learned advocate submits that since the present penalty relates to demand arising for the period from 1.4.2000 to 15.5.2004, the appellant could not have suppressed relevant facts as the department was aware....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the applicability of provisions of Section 11AC of the Act. It is not in dispute that the appellants have raised different set of invoices indicating higher amounts while preparing Central Excise invoices indicating lower amounts. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with the view taken by the C....