2014 (2) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....availment of abatement as per the Notification 14/2008-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant are manufacturer of Anti-freezing coolants which is liable to pay duty on MRP basis. The appellant was claiming abatement of 40% as per the Notification 2/2005 dated 07.01.2005 and paying duty respectively. On 01.03.2008, vide Notification 40/08 the abatement on the said product reduced to 38% but the appellant was availing 40% abatement by ignoring the said notification. Further vide Notification No. 40/08 dated 24.12.2008 again the abatement was reduced to 35%. The appellant started taking abatement 35% in pursuant to the Notification No. 40/08 dated 24.12.2008 with effect from 24.12.2008. An audit was conduc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... decoration charges in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.) for imposition of the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. For availing of excess abatement, he submits that the appellant have wrongly taken credit during that period because it was not in the knowledge that from 01.03.2008 the abatement has been reduced from 40% to 38% MRP. He further submits that the appellant is contesting the duty liability along with interest as the same has been paid by invoking extended period of limitation. There is no willful suppression of fact by the appellant. He further sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntent to evade payment of duty by contravening the Act or Rules. As the appellant has not contested the duty liability, therefore the mandatory penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is imposable on the appellant. In support of his contentions he placed reliance in para 18 of the decision of the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra). The appellant could have paid the said amount in December itself when notification No.2/2006 dated 01.03.2006 superseded by the Notification 14/2008 dated 01.03.2008 but the intention of the appellant shows that they are ought not to pay duty on the differential duty on account of excess availment of abatement on their finished goods. 5. Considered the submission in detail and perused the records b....