TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. 2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacturing of iron and steel re-rolling products. On 26.12.2003, the Intelligence Wing of the second respondent Department visited the appellant's factory and verified the stocks and accounts. Pursuant to such inspection, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant stating that they had adopted lower assessable value at the time of clearing goods to the consignment agents and had realised excess amounts over and above the invoice value adopted at the factory gate. It was further stated in the show cause notice that despite having received sale patties showing proof of such excess collections, they failed to discharge the differential duty liability immediately with interest and they had calcul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1944 and Rs.10,000/- penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, r/w Section 38-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Appellate Authority, by order dated 27.03.2007, disposed of the appeal by reducing the penalty to 25% of the amount so determined and imposed Rs.90,000/- as penalty and the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal the only point canvassed was that the appellant has paid the duty before issuan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ented that there is no willful intention to evade payment of duty and penalty of 25% imposed by the First Appellate Authority should be set aside. 4. Mr.K.Mohanamurali, learned standing counsel for the second respondent Department contended that the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal rightly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and the conduct of the appellant clearly shows that there was an intention to evade payment of duty and payment of duty prior to issuance of show cause notice would not automatically absolve the appellant from levy of penalty. In support of his contention, the learned standing counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consignment agents and the Director of the Company admitted the liability and accepted to pay the differential duty. The Original Authority after considering the materials placed before him pointed out that as declared in the invoices that the removals specified in the notice are towards consignment agents, the responsibility of paying differential duty lies with the noticee. The Original Authority further pointed out that when the appellant was conscious of the notional value for sale towards consignment agent, the responsibility of paying differential duty is rest on the appellant. More so, when they had earlier been paying differential duty for such consignment sales, the plea of the assessee was liable to be rejected. Admittedly, the ma....